Tuesday, June 23, 2009

The Definitive Smackdown of the Trig-Truther-in-Chief



Christopher Badeaux has written the definitive smackdown of Andrew Sullivan. The section titled “Dr. Sullivan on Sarah Palin’s Reproductive Abilities” is worth quoting here in part:

Perhaps the most remarkable part of the 2008 Presidential campaign was neither black sheep Republican John McCain’s nomination as the standard-bearer for a party he’d often accused of intolerance and hard-heartedness, nor Barack Obama’s unlikely cruise to the Presidency, but rather the groundswell of interest in the activities of Sarah Palin’s private parts.

Mrs. Palin, for those fortunate enough not to care about national politics, is the governor of Alaska, a married mother and not infrequent moose hunter. In early 2008, she informed her cabinet and the press for the first time that she was seven months pregnant — a somewhat surprising revelation given that she was in her mid-forties, and was not visibly showing much of a pregnancy belly. Nevertheless, two months later, she delivered a baby boy named Trig, who was subsequently diagnosed with Down Syndrome. Some months later, in a more than slightly surprising turn of events, Governor Palin was nominated for the vice-presidency of the United States.

As is typical of modern American politics, this turned Mrs. Palin into a hate object for roughly half of the country; the fact that she’d had the tackiness not to murder her defective son in utero made things worse. Lacking a toehold on which to criticize her record — a reformer who had challenged the old guard of her party and state government — and unable to fall back on remarks about her looks or any of the other, usual personal assaults, a select group of internet personalities decided that Mrs. Palin’s son Trig must, in fact, be her daughter’s, who was then a senior in high school. This being modern American political online writing, proof of this ridiculous assertion was neither offered nor demanded, and a thousand would-be obstetricians immediately began poking at pictures of a teenaged girl to demonstrate, for all the world to see, that those photos showed she was large enough to be pregnant. That these same people would be the first to cry in fury if the child being subjected to this humiliation were not the child of a Republican was, again as usual, lost on the lay doctors caught in their five-minute hate.

Andrew Sullivan immediately leaped into the fray. Unlike the rest of these non-experts, many of whom began to back off of the story when word emerged that Mrs. Palin’s daughter was pregnant and had been close to the time of Trig’s birth, Sullivan, who apparently received a secret medical degree while attending Harvard, began obsessively following this story, turning the Atlantic from a fairly uninteresting opinion website into a leading journal of gynecology and obstetrics. Rarely in human history has a gay man been that obsessed with a married woman’s vagina.

This became, perhaps even more than the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency, Sullivan’s driving motivation during the 2008 campaign, if the quantity of his writings are any indication of his drive. While others were intimidated by photos of Mrs. Palin in late-stage pregnancy looking like a woman in late-stage pregnancy, the biological impossibility of a seventeen year-old girl giving birth to two non-fraternal children less than eleven months apart, and other indicia of what the rest of us take for ordinary reality, that laser-like mind knew no fear.

[...]

Behold Andrew Sullivan, a man who contains infinite contradictions: A believer in privacy, except a woman’s medical records, who never seemed upset that his preferred horse in the race released nothing besides a one-page “All clear!” note from his doctor; an opponent of the objectification of homosexuals, who objectified at least one, and arguably two, children; a professional journalist with a boundless understanding of not only applied medicine, but also hospital protocol and the art of diagnosis by news clipping and photograph.

Read the whole thing. It’s vintage.

55 comments:

portlandon June 23, 2009 3:06 PM  

Old Sulley really gets roasted in this one. His derangement is off the scales and unmeasurable.

Bill in Baltimore June 23, 2009 3:21 PM  
This post has been removed by the author.
Patty Hewes June 23, 2009 3:45 PM  

Speaking of PDS,

The old bitter man on cnn has this question for his extremist "viewers"


Cafferty: What message would Palin send if she does not run for reelection?" - http://tinyurl.com/mf77h2

Brooks5 June 23, 2009 4:03 PM  

I don't know what the message coming from Gov. Palin would be, but I believe the message coming back from Barry would be roughly translated as "Um. Uh oh."

Doug (formerly DB) June 23, 2009 4:03 PM  

This Sullivan smackdown should be sent to Dennis Zaki. Someone should tell him that his iceberg has melted.

gardunne63 June 23, 2009 4:10 PM  

A junior-high kid who just took a health course knows that the odds favor a 45-year-old rather than a 17-year-old mother having the Downs Syndrome baby.

How many teenage mothers have Downs Syndrome babies each year?

Probably a lower number than the number of hairs on Sullivan's head.

techno June 23, 2009 4:16 PM  

I'm sorry folks, but I believe this is a double standard. Posters can be banned for even bringing up this topic.

Next to bringing up Governor Sarah Palin's appearance I strongly believe that this subject should never again make an appearance in a C4P header, even in a cameo performance.

What say you readers and posters of C4P?

R. A. Mansour June 23, 2009 4:22 PM  

techno, posters are banned for being Trig Truthers (i.e., posting comments claiming that Trig Palin is not Gov. Palin's son). They are not banned for mocking or denouncing Trig Truthers. Big difference. I also ban racists. That doesn't mean that I ban discussions of race.

KentonAK June 23, 2009 4:26 PM  
This post has been removed by the author.
JohnDoeAt30Below June 23, 2009 4:27 PM  

I know RAM hates Trig Truther talk but anyone with a brain would consider this:

Wasilla is a very small town. MatSu Medical Center has 400 employees and everyone knows everyone. If there were the slightest shred of truth to this preposterous story, someone would have talked by now. Some scrub tech or med records clerk would have gotten drunk and blabbed, some classmate of Bristol's would have snitched on her FaceBook page, somebody would have said something.

Nancy June 23, 2009 4:34 PM  

That was a sweet smackdown. Thanks for the post.

Are Andrew Sullivan and Shannyn Moore the same person? They both seem intrigued with parts of Governor Palin's body that shouldn't be intrigued with.

KentonAK June 23, 2009 4:48 PM  

JohnDoeAt30Below-

All Employees At Mat-Su Regional Hospital (As With ALL Hospitals) Are Governed By HIPPA Federal Privacy Laws...

Doesn't Mean They Don't Want To Dunk Andrew Sullivan (And ALL Trig-Truthers) Head-First In The Matanuska River...

Stupid Trig-Truthers Are Beyond Preposterous...

To Spread The Lie That A Mother Isn't The Mother Of Her Own Child Is Pure Evil...

upinak June 23, 2009 4:49 PM  

Has Thingy or mudflattener taken to understanding.. they are next?

upinak June 23, 2009 4:55 PM  

BTW anyone call the IRS or the Alaska Board of Businesses for Licensing yet?

JohnDoeAt30Below June 23, 2009 4:57 PM  

<<< All Employees At Mat-Su Regional Hospital (As With ALL Hospitals) Are Governed By HIPPA Federal Privacy Laws... >>>

It's HIPAA - but that wouldn't stop some sleazy meth head who works as a custodian from giving an 'unattributed story' to the National Enquirer.

Nothing like that has ever surfaced. The only thing that has ever seen print was 'well, it COULD have happened' just like the moon landing could have been faked.

All it would have taken, in both cases, would be a conspiracy by thousands of people.

KentonAK June 23, 2009 4:57 PM  

sjk-

The Last Few Minutes Of Your Life Should Be Interesting.

Doug (formerly DB) June 23, 2009 5:11 PM  

sjk and other Trig Truthers have the same cognitive ability as those who think 9/11 was an "inside job".

techno June 23, 2009 5:38 PM  

RA Mansour:

I am not talking censorship here but discreetly avoiding highlighting a topic that appears to be 'off limits'.

I personally find the topic unseemly and disgusting and if someone in a post wants to make comment so be it; but you folks take on a different role as 'contributors'. Is it really in the best interest of Sarah Palin to 'stir the pot' on this subject?
My opinion is that it is not.

narciso June 23, 2009 5:43 PM  

Techno, we're just dismantling what General Honore, could call
"stuck on stupid" arguments, hence the nazgul's come. The point I was making about the previous thread, was that these folks don't have a clue as to what her intentions might be, yet they are treated as
authorities, on her. She wouldn't want to give up Alaska, but if need be she will.

Toki De La Vega June 24, 2009 12:25 AM  
This post has been removed by the author.
Postergirl June 24, 2009 5:30 PM  

There are a variety of "Trig Truthers". Some believe that Sarah did indeed give birth to Trig, but have a big problem with a right-to-lifer traveling in her 8th month of pregnancy on several long flights, and flying while her water was broken, and then choosing to go to a local hospital with no neo-natal facilites rather than at least getting checked out in Houston, or Seattle, or at least Anchorage hospitals. The other Trig Truthers just don't believe she gave birth to Trig, and it's not only from her appearance, but what is called the "wild ride" I just described above.

So Sullivan and others are not interested in her vagina at all; they are interested in her state of mind of a)if she did not give birth to Trig but said she did and b) if she did, why would she subject her unborn child to airplane pressure, possible birth on an airplane, and not wanting to stop at a hospital with the most modern equipment to take care of her infant just in case he was born with problems. It's that nagging question of how anyone so far along in their pregnancy, and knowing that they are carrying a DS child which are prone to problems at birth, could have chosen to do what she did. The mind, not the vagina, is where the trouble lies.

Missouri4Palin June 25, 2009 6:45 AM  

Postergirl,

Do you realize that flying is the only way to get around Alaska? Or have you ever been to Alaska?

Postergirl June 25, 2009 11:11 AM  

Hello Missouri4Palin. Well, flying and driving are ways to get around in Alaska. But that's not the point... you missed it completely. The point was leaving Alaska in the first place, in her 8th month of pregnancy with being 43 years old (automatically considered a higher-risk pregnancy than average), carrying a DS child which are known to be premature, and are known to OFTEN have problems at birth. So what I was trying to explain is that Truthers are not all those who believe that Trig isn't hers; many do believe she did indeed give birth to Trig, but can't fathom a woman traveling to Houston in the first place during such a pregnancy, but also traveling back while admittedly leaking amniotic fluid AND having some contractions WITHOUT getting herself checked out in Houston before she left, or stopping in an Anchorage hospital with neo-natal facilities to ensure that her soon-to-be-born baby would have the very best care. I just repepated what I wrote the first time but in a different way. Do you understand now that the post I wrote had nothing to do with how you 'get around' in Alaska?

It's this 'wild ride' that sounds so bizarre to many that it a) can't be true or b) shows a phenomenal lack of good judgement and frightening decision making when it comes to the safety of your fetus.

Bill in Baltimore June 25, 2009 11:16 AM  

postergirl,

why do you use the latin language when 99.9999% of everything else you write is in English ?

Latin is a dead language in case you haven't heard.

use English: its a BABY.

fetus: Latin for baby

Postergirl June 25, 2009 4:09 PM  

Bill in Baltimore: You may replace the word "fetus" with "baby". There, do you feel better now? Does it change the point of the post for you? Is that the only part of the post you have issue with, or do you get why that whole "wild ride" doesn't compute with most people who hear about it? Pro-Palin or not, it's not really defendable... she has every right to do what she wants - her body, her pregnancy. But that doesn't mean that what she did was right. I think that pro-life people would especially take issue with that.

KentonAK June 25, 2009 4:19 PM  

'PosterGirl' Is Our 'Concern' Troll Of The Day...

(We Need Better Trolls)

Bill in Baltimore June 25, 2009 4:23 PM  

postergirl,

yes, it's better to use baby, because that's what it is. The first thing the liberals do is change the language, and one of the devilish things they did with the abortion debate is to use the "it's a blog" term "fetus" instead of what it really is - A BABY. Because people inherently REVOLT at killing a baby, but not at killing a fetus. Don't even try to dispute that.

I may not read everything, but I am pretty attuned to everything Sarah. So until the last day or two, I have never heard of how Trig was born.

Let's be real here, your real purpose is to try and put doubt in people's mind about Sarah, the way the MSM does.

you don't know all the circumstances, you can cast stones all you want, look at Trig and look at Sarah.

Is your point Sarah is evil ?
Is your point Sarah is a sinner ?
Is your point Sarah didn't give birth to Trig ?

oh, I know what is your point - it's the Bob Beckel approach, "something's just not right, I can't put my finger on it, but it just doesn't speak well of her" - without really adrressing the facts.

Postergirl June 29, 2009 8:57 PM  

Well Bill, I posted something and it didn't make it for whatever reason, so we'll see if this does:

Yes, of course my purpose is to put doubt in people's minds about Sarah, especially since you yourself said you didn't know about the days leading up to Trig's birth, for example. Meaning, it's such a well-known and discussed story, it's surprising you wouldn't know about it. So what else don't you know and don't bother to find out? That's what's fascinates me.

And no, it's not the 'something's just not right but I can't put my finger on it'. There are obvious things that aren't right, flat-out lies that are bizarre. Things that she says that are so easy to look up to see whether they are true or not.

She's not evil, she's odd and petty. What I do believe, is that she has strange religious beliefs, and from watching her at the rallies, I think she either is too dumb to realize that she instigated the loonies out there with her rhetoric, or simply didn't care. I think would be dangerous in the White House because she is not intellectually curious, she's smart but not intelligent (meaning, she's not well-read, well-versed or knowledgeable about either national nor world politics), and she has knee-jerk reactions to criticism.

Is she a sinner? I'm not religious so the word doesn't work for how I would or would not describe someone. I could care less whether she got pregnant with Track before she got married, or that her daughter did. What I do believe is that she's like many other evangelicals: preaching one thing but practicing antoher, or at least wants to preach about something that doesn't work (like abstinence-only, as in the case of her daughter... didn't work there).

Did she give birth to Trig? I tend to think that yes, she did, but the story is so bizarre that it casts doubt in my mind, and I don't understand why she didn't just say "here's his birth certificate" or have her doctor confirm it in her own words, but instead to negate the rumors, tells the entire world that her daughter is pregnant. And the timing of that was ONLY to counteract the rumors of Sarah not being the birth mother. She could have been kinder.

So yes, I want to cast doubt in Palin supporters. I see blind devotion, no questioning, and then I see comments like the one from "Missouri4Palin" who responded to my 'wild ride' post with "you can only get around Alaska by flying", which had NOTHING to do with my post and I just go..."huh???" and think... that's the problem. Is no one actually looking at all the information out there about her, or are they just opinionated but not informed?

Bill in Baltimore June 30, 2009 7:53 AM  

postergirl,

I'm back on the computer after 3 days away.

I printed out your post from this morning, plus my post that you were responding to.

I re-read the original C4P post, I skimmed the actual smackdown article (which has quotes from Andrew Sullivan's writings on this topic).

Then I started to respond and and had serious questions for you based on the 1st and 2nd of your six paragraphs.

Then I realized, "this is incredibly futile", postergirl is simply out to get SP pure and simple.

Your belief is that SP DID give birth to Trig. Then, like any liberal, you simply move away from the truth and start ranting on SOMETHING ELSE, all with the goal of "cast[ing] doubt people's mind about Sarah" (which you stated twice).

So, you posted a followup three days after my post. If you really want to engage, I'm back on the computer.

But first, answer this question:
- Does truth exist?
- If so, how do you know what it is?

Postergirl June 30, 2009 12:48 PM  

Bill, "nope" is the answer regarding your statement that my belief is that SP didn't give birth to Trig. I'm not sure what to believe because of the wild ride, because she kept it secret for 7 months, because of the photos of her not looking pregnant at all; however, my inclination is to believe she is the bio mom simply because I think by now she would have been exposed (i.e. enough people would have seen Bristol pregnant at the time), and DS babies are not uncommonly born to over-40 moms and finally, it's just too crazy to have done such a thing, perhaps even for Sarah.

Look, I realize I won't change anyone's mind. But I read the ADN, I read the articles here, I read Alaska blogs, etc., etc. etc. Forget all that for a moment, since they all have their bias, and imagine, yes, even C4P!

What I saw when she was interviewed, what I saw when she was speaking at rallies during the campaign, what she has participated in as far as religious 'ceremonies', the factual record of what she left behind in Wasilla, what she said and did regarding the 'bridge to nowhere'... these things alone were enough to form my opinion that this woman has absolutely ZERO business being the Vice President of our country. It was so absurd, so completely and utterly fantasy-land bizarre that out of all the female Republican politicians out there, this woman was picked. 2 years as a governor of 700,000 people and she is qualified to be VP? Never traveled the world? Can't speak eloquently in an interview, not just once, but several times? And since then... her word salads confirm that she isn't intelligent enough to be in national politics. It's fine if she speaks that way, but it's not fine for someone who wants to be a world-class politician.

When the blog admin writes, as she did in the Vanity Fair post that "Something about Sarah Palin scares people in the Beltway and media elite, Republican and Democrat alike", she is 100% correct. Sarah scares us. You like to think it's because she is a 'strong woman'.There are PLENTY of strong, INTELLIGENT women out there whose views on politics I disagree with but RESPECT, but Sarah is not one of them. But we have been telling you all along that she scares us because she is not intelligent, wordly, savvy and humanitarian enough to be VP, let alone Pres!!! And not only is it what she ISN'T, it's also what she IS, or what she believes. Her dominionist, end-of-the-world faith connections are frightening; her views on sex-education and abstinence puts all girls in peril (daughter Bristol, example #1), her unbridled ambition to be VP or whatever, despite her lack of education or experience 'without blinking'...I mean, don't you want your country run by someone more intelligent and worldy than yourself??? (And don't bring straw-man Obama into this discussion as so often happens when talking about Sarah.....I have no love for him either, but I can recognize that he is more intelligent than Sarah, even if I wish there had been someone else to vote for). So really.... you've read it all. I like to think I understand some of the reasons people support Sarah. I understand why the under-educated, opinionated-without-facts people support her. Yet, you sound intelligent in your posts, so for me it's difficult to understand people of intelligence supporting this scary woman.

We can leave it at that - there isn't much more to say. I won't change your mind, and I won't change mine.

Bill in Baltimore June 30, 2009 1:34 PM  

postergirl,

yeah, I guess we won't change each other's minds.

But why won't you engage in honest debate?

>>this woman has absolutely ZERO business being the Vice President of our country.
- agreed. VPOTUS under McCain would have a total waste (of her talent). POTUS is better, looks like it will be 2012

I asked you
But first, answer this question:
- Does truth exist?
- If so, how do you know what it is?

and your reply was another rant on why you don't like her. Can't you engage in honest debate?

If truth doesn't exist, then we're in a world of hurt, no?

Postergirl June 30, 2009 11:10 PM  

Bill,
Hmm, I suppose that's a good, thought-provoking question..."Does truth exist?". Truth often comes in the form of opinion, doesn't it? What is true for me may not be true for you. It's like beliefs (whether religious or otherwise) - our beliefs are based on opinions, sometimes well-researched and based on information... that we BELIEVE to be true. We believe what we do not only based on reading and being informed through outside sources, but also how we were raised and what our personal experiences are. Is it true that if you or I got hit by a train going 100 mph we'd die? I'd say yes. Do we have that belief in common? What is it that you're looking for with that question? That truth is black and white and absolute? That it is not?

Truth must exist and does exist. But here we are talking about opinions. It is my opinion that Sarah Palin would not make a good President.

So can I ask then, what factors in your opinion would make her a good President? What would make her a better President than, say, Condoleeza Rice or another competent Republican (and let's stick with women) woman.

I'm agnostic, a social liberal (to a degree... and there are always degrees), fiscal conservative. I like many things about what I consider true Republican principles, which in my opinion have gotten lost in the Christian/faith-based, socially conservative, divisive 'new' Republican politics which is out there now. I find most politics now disturbing, contradicting and many political personalities seem to be more about advancing themselves, rather than the country. I see weak Democrats and divisive and inciteful Republicans. I see a phenomenal amount of hypocrisy.

So back to truth: My truth is that I do not like Sarah Palin as a national politician, based on what I've learned so far.

Bill in Baltimore June 30, 2009 11:48 PM  

postergirl,

thanks for engaging.

I asked "does truth exist" and you said:
>>What is true for me may not be true for you
- well, is that statement itself true?

>>our beliefs are based on opinions
- really? aren't our beliefs based on our worldview? meaning you look at the world without god and say "Darwin was right" and I look at the world and say "God made it."
- Yet it's the same world

>>What is it that you're looking for with that question? That truth is black and white and absolute? That it is not?
- yes, I'm looking for whether you think truth exists. In other words, is there such a thing as truth which is indisputable?

>>It is my opinion that Sarah Palin would not make a good President.
- ok, you are entitled to your opinion. But what is it about her than you think is bad such that she wouldn't be a good POTUS ?

>>what factors in your opinion would make her a good President?
- where should I start? Do you read the posts here? Have you read C4P-What we stand for?http://www.conservatives4palin.com/2009/04/c4p-who-we-are-and-what-we-stand-for.html
- Also Who is Sarah Palin http://www.conservatives4palin.com/2009/03/who-is-sarah-palin.html

- But one factor is she stands on principle, not on which way the wind is blowing (ala John McCain). Example: she stands on the principle that the USA should move towards energy independence, and she is doing something about it, the natural gas pipeline to be built as a joint venture between Exxon and TransCanada Pipeline.

>>What would make her a better President than, say, Condoleeza Rice or another competent Republican
- for CR, she is a staffer steeped in international relations experience. She is the "expert". Sarah Palin is a leader, the executive. She leads the country, but she's not in every meeting on every topic. Good people like CR work in her area, good people like military men / women work in their area, etc.
- as for other Republican women, let's say Kay Bailey Hutchinson in Texas. She's a RINO, so that's a discussion in and of itself. Others? Hmmmm, can't think of any.

>>have gotten lost in the Christian/faith-based . . . Republican politics which is out there now
- I think the larger topic you present is there's a lot of "Christians" who give Christianity a bad name. Can't argue with that. Again, another long discussion, but it looks like you are essentially saying "Christianity should not be part of the political decision making process", or something along those lines. Does that imply that Christians should not hold public office?

>>many political personalities seem to be more about advancing themselves, rather than the country
- if you would really look at SP through YOUR OWN EYES and not the filter of the MSM, I think / hope you would agree: SP is servant of Alaska, serving the best interests of Alaska, and she would do the same for the USA. What you dislike about politics is the crap of people like John McCain, John Kerry, and plenty of others *on both sides of the fence*. That is where SP is different and why we fiercely love her.

>>I see a phenomenal amount of hypocrisy.
- Amen to that. But again, with Sarah, we see purity. Not perfection, no one is that, but a pure heart.

>>I do not like Sarah Palin as a national politician, based on what I've learned so far.
- Are you open to a change of opinion based on facts? If so, read C4P with an open mind, ignore some of our more knee-jerk reactions, and look at Sarah herself. Read what she says. Listen to her talk. Then decide.

I would say you are turned off by politics because of creeps like you know and we know, Dems and R's alike. Don't look at Sarah with the same lens.

If you slogged through this mess, thank you. I am open for discussions like this and hope stay engaged.

KentonAK July 1, 2009 12:23 AM  

Bill In Baltimore-
I consider you and 'Rusty' two of the important and vital new voices on C4P...

I've been following with interest the dialogue between you and 'postergirl'
Its been a good exchange...
I admire and appreciate the level of respectful discourse you've brought to this discussion.

Bill in Baltimore July 1, 2009 12:31 AM  

KentonAK,

thank you so much !

This is so enjoyable and educational and I hope from my little perch in Baltimore I can have some impact.

I do wish I had studied more . . . you know I should be more prepared but the pieces are coming together a bit.

1 Peter 3:15b Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect . . .

Postergirl July 2, 2009 11:39 PM  

BillinBaltimore: I'm so busy lately and am going out of town for a few days, but I will reply to this (interesting to me to actually have a discussion that isn't just "you're crazy", "no, YOU'RE crazy"...but you ARE crazy for liking Palin...ha ha!). Seriously, if you're still checking this topic, I'll post something in a few days when I'm back. If not, it was fun nevertheless.

Bill in Baltimore July 3, 2009 12:58 AM  

postergirl,

well, of course I am still here, ha ha.

just post when you are able.

I unfortunately have to stop the whole blogging thing, it was consuming me.

But if you post, I'm still signed up for e-mail notification and will definitely respond.

Thanks !

Postergirl July 5, 2009 11:04 PM  

Alright Bill in Baltimore:

What is true for me may not be true for you. That statement is true. For me. Maybe not as exact as what you wanted to hear.
Yes, our beliefs are based on our worldview, which forms our opinions and the way we experience the world around us. Maybe I skipped a step. But they are opinions nevertheless; you view Sarah Palin as an executive who can lead. I view her as incredibly under-educated, intellectually lazy and therefore in no position to lead nationally, and her apparent world view was partially or perhaps in large part formed by her years in the type of church I find dangerous. Is she really part of the dominionist / the rapture is coming / let’s hurry it up so we can go to heaven branch of Christianity? Is this true? I don’t know for sure, but it sure appears that way. Is this truth, partial truth, is it embellishment? It isn’t just the one video of her being prayed over by a witch doctor, it’s that she was part of that church for so many years, which then in turn makes me believe that it has indeed formed her world view to a large degree.

The religious beliefs of our politicians are important to me. I don't think that religion and politics mix well. Religion helps shape our worldview. My worldview has been shaped, in part, by growing up in Europe, traveling extensively throughout my childhood, teen and adult years in Europe and Africa, by religion (as a child, but which I found, when I came to the U.S., incredibly judgmental, divisive and ugly, compared to what I had been taught as a child, so I dumped it, as far as the conventional ‘approach’), and all the numerous things that shape our worldview. I couldn’t even list it all, as none of us could.

I think I’ve already told you why I don’t think she would make a good President, and why in fact she would make a very bad president: her lack of a quality education, and not just as far as universities and majors (I am not impressed with 5 colleges in 5 years… I’m no PhD brainiac myself, but in my President… damn right I want someone who has a good ‘world resume’ so to speak, academically and otherwise. I also think she reacts off the cuff, responding to every little thing about her in the media that she doesn’t like, with official statements that make her seem too emotional, not introspective and with no clue how what she says and does reflect upon her.

(posting more - it wouldn't accept all I wrote in one post)...

Postergirl July 5, 2009 11:17 PM  

--continuing-- from my above post:

And, I don’t think she is truthful, or ‘pure of heart’. A good example would be the email exchange between her and the McCain campaign’s chief strategist, Steve Schmidt, regarding Todd and his 7-year membership in the Alaskan Independence Party. This was such an obvious attempt to lie about what Todd had been part of, and to get the chief strategist to lie about it too, as well as trying to pull one over on the public... something that was so easy to look up and find out (re. what the AIP is really about) – here’s part of the article:

“Schmidt hit "reply to all" less than five minutes after Palin's e-mail was sent. "Ignore it," he wrote. "He was a member of the aip? My understanding is yes. That is part of their platform. Do not engage the protestors. If a reporter asks say it is ridiculous. Todd loves america."

This clear cut response from the campaign's top dog carried an air of finality, but it did not satisfy Palin. She responded with another e-mail, adding five more names to the "cc" box, all of whom traveled on her campaign plane. They included her senior political adviser Tucker Eskew, senior aide Jason Recher, the lone traveling aide from her Alaska office Kris Perry, press secretary Tracey Schmitt and personal assistant Bexie Nobles.

Palin's insertion of the five additional staffers in the e-mail chain was an apparent attempt to rally her own troops in the face of a decision from the commanding general with which she disagreed. Her inclusion of her personal assistant was particularly telling about her quest for affirmation and support in numbers, since the young staffer was not in a position to have any input on campaign strategy.

"That's not part of their platform and he was only a 'member' bc independent alaskans too often check that 'Alaska Independent' box on voter registrations thinking it just means non partisan," Palin wrote. "He caught his error when changing our address and checked the right box. I still want it fixed."

Bill, it’s right there…. “he was only a member because independent Alaskans too often check that ‘Alaskan Indpendent’ box…’ and then she added that last line about catching his ‘error’. A 7-year error?!?! In addition she starts by saying that secession is NOT part of the platform. It’s right there in black and white. This is not something made up by the media. And it’s a clear lie, so easily verifiable.

And Schmidt replies:

"Secession," he wrote. "It is their entire reason for existence. A cursory examination of the website shows that the party exists for the purpose of seceding from the union. That is the stated goal on the front page of the web site. Our records indicate that todd was a member for seven years. If this is incorrect then we need to understand the discrepancy. The statement you are suggesting be released would be innaccurate. The innaccuracy would bring greater media attention to this matter and be a distraction. According to your staff there have been no media inquiries into this and you received no questions about it during your interviews. If you are asked about it you should smile and say many alaskans who love their country join the party because it speeks to a tradition of political independence. Todd loves his country

We will not put out a statement and inflame this and create a situation where john has to adress this."

There are other samples of half-truths and flat out lies. All politicians lie, that’s a given. But this was an absurd attempt to explain why Todd belonged to a secessionist party.

And of course, now we have a whole new ball-game with Palin resigning as governor. As I’ve said before, I know I won’t change anyone’s mind, but I’ve given you some reasons why I, and others like me, think she would be a joke as a national politician. A good talk-show host of Fox? Her own TV-show? Stumping for other politicians? Sure. But not President of the United States.

Bill in Baltimore July 6, 2009 7:03 AM  

postergirl,

I'm still here, thanks for the follow-up. Hope you had a good Independence Day.

I will read your post this morning and reply later today, probably not before noon, hopefully on my lunch hour.

Bill in Baltimore July 6, 2009 9:35 AM  

postergirl,

I read your post(s) and again thank you for sharing your thoughts.

You've posed a good challenge for me to respond to, and I want to do so in a timely manner and without writing any long-winded answers.

I appreciate your sticking with this and I want to respectively respond and hopefully you feel we're not engaging in verbal ping-pong. I certainly don't think you are, and I like having the opportunity to respond.

your questions and comments make me really think about what I believe and while we don't agree on everything, it helps me to better understand and articulate what I believe.

But here's a couple of quick takes.

To my question "Is there absolute truth", you say "No, there's not absolute truth". Ok, so you say there is no absolute truth.

But your entire set of points / positions in your post(s) belie this position !
- you want the TRUTH (about the Alaska Independence Party and e-mails and such)
- you want the TRUTH regarding SP's church affiliation
- you don't believe that SP is pure of heart, but apparently Steve Schmidt IS pure of heart (or at least he is the TRUTHFUL one in this matter)
- also, it's your position that since SS is (as you say) the COMMANDING GENERAL, that SP should just sit down and shut up, right?

But really, is that what you want in a politician ? to just say "yes sir" no matter what, especially one who is running for VPOTUS?
- you want the TRUTH on AIP, that is, EVERYONE should UNDERSTAND they are a secessionist party (which I don't believe)
- you want the TRUTH on Todd Palin's association with them.

I will discuss what you say is SP's "lie" about Todd's association with AIP later, but
answer me this:
- is there any evidence that Todd Palin himself ACTIVELY participated in ANYTHING that supported the SECESSION of Alaska? or was it, as SP said, "check and forget, then correct when we moved"?

- Why do you innately not believe what Sarah Palin said, "when he realized his mistake, he corrected it." that's the end of the story and nothing deep on sinister ?

Now, I need a little help from my friends at C4P.
- Can someone put the AIP platform into perspective for postergirl ? I don't have time to research it (and probably don't have the political background to explain it simply).

but, postergirl, my sense is that the AIP group has a bit of uh, "independent" spirit in them, they fight for states rights and they don't want the Feds cramming things down their throats (kind of like how the USA was founded).

Ok, sorry, that was a long-winded "quick" reply, but there are other items I do want to address, such as the "witch doctor" in particular.

But I better uh, get back to work.

Hope you keep sticking around, thanks.

Postergirl July 6, 2009 6:05 PM  

Hi Bill,
About the truth thing. When I wrote that if you or I were to be hit by a train at 100 mph, we’d die, and then wrote “what’s true for me may not be true for you”, it was my attempt to say that there IS truth (of course there is), but that there are also things that we view as truth that are NOT absolute, because they are based on our worldview/opinion, etc.

(oh, and I’m long-winded too, so don’t worry).

Should SP “sit down and shut up”? No, we are all entitled to speak our minds, but with that comes responsibility. It also means that when we speak, and especially if we are a public figure (a politician, a celebrity, etc.), we have to realize that what we say will be interpreted and picked apart and disagreed with and agreed with by the public. Sarah is very well entitled to go ‘rogue’, to not be muzzled, to go ‘off script’ and do what she attempted to do during the campaign. But with that comes repercussions, and this is what she seems not to understand. If someone with experience with the media, such as the strategist Schmidt, tells her that if you do (a), then (b) will likely happen, and it’s a bad idea, a smart person would listen. This is his opinion. Maybe he delivered it as a ‘that’s it and that’s what we’re doing’. She can take it or leave it. Don’t you think that his advice was on target? There wasn’t all that much said about Todd’s involvement in the AIP, though certainly there was some, and that would be because they didn’t yap about it and try to explain it away. And having tried to explain it away the way SP wanted them to? That would most certainly have made the media have a field day with it, and it would have been much more in the news than it was. Most people don't like organizations that want to secede from the U.S. or want absolutely zero involvement from the federal government at all.

This is to me an example of why she isn’t politically savvy. What Palin has is an “it” factor; good for her. This is what rallied so many people around her; it was “refreshing” as it has been said. But are many intelligent conservative women politicians out there, as I’ve stated before, with whom I disagree strongly, yet there is no question that they have experience, education, savviness (is that a word?) and know how to work the landscape of politics to get their point across. One thing she is, is polarizing and divisive.

Palin’s resignation speech on Friday… not even you guys here at C4P understood what she was doing…the posts were full of questions and panic. Why is she doing this? What is she doing next? No one understood why, and still don’t (republicans, supporters of Palin, democrats alike), she was resigning in 3 weeks. When there is not clear explanation, people will speculate. And form opinions. You leave a void only to be filled by speculation. Then Sarah says "How sad that Washington and the media will never understand; it’s about country.” Well, there’s yet another example of her speaking and no one knowing what the hell she’s talking about. So again, she says what she will, but then whines when no one understands her or picks apart what she said… BECAUSE she is not well-spoken. I thought she rambled in her speech. And she was angry. The timing as well, spoke of a decision that was hastily made (or forced upon her).

The AIP wanted to secede and become its own nation. Whether it wants to do so now is debatable (I would guess that some of its members do, and some don’t, but that’s just my guess). You can excuse away Todd’s membership in this party as a wrongly checked box on a form, but I don’t believe it. And if you do, I wonder if there is anything that Sarah has said or done that you don’t 100% fully agree with and think is wonderful. The reason I don’t believe her statement to Schmidt about that, is that it seems so incredibly impossible. And because she has lied about other things. It gives me pause to believe her when she’s demonstrated that she lies about things big and small.

Postergirl July 6, 2009 6:09 PM  

-continued-

Bill, I would like to know what it is about her in particular that you find worthy of serving as President of the U.S. It’s clear to me she isn’t educated. Do you find her educated? Does that not matter to you? She hasn’t traveled the world. Does that not matter to you? She has no foreign policy experience but worse, appears to have no INTEREST in it. She didn't even seem to knowledgeable in national politics. She reacts to everything said about her by the media by complaining (something she accused Hillary Clinton of doing… “whining” I think she called it). Forget the views that you may like (pro-life, religious, smaller government, less taxes, etc. etc.). Why her and not another female politician? What in her background, about the way she has spoken as far as policy for America, makes you think she would be so great as POTUS? Serving as mayor of a tiny town, and now Governor for less than one term, quitting because it got rough (or whatever the reason since we don’t really know), not being able to answer soft-ball questions coherently in the few national interviews she did during the campaign… are these things that you excuse her because she has the same world-view as you?

It has been said that she has shown little interest in governing Alaska since she came back from the campaign. Do you believe this or not? Why not if so?

There is a difference between agreeing with someone’s views, and looking at them critically and deciding that the other factors are important too, and believing them fit for the Presidency.

Ok, I’ve gotta run… more later maybe. Though I’m getting headaches from being on the computer wayyyyyy too much lately!

Bill in Baltimore July 6, 2009 7:05 PM  

postergirl,

whoa, you laid it on thick (volume-wise), I was still formulating an answer during my commute from last nights (double) post . . .

I'll skim it tonight and respond with my reaction and then see about some detailed responses, I really do enjoy this because it sharpens my own views and ability to express them.

Bill in Baltimore July 6, 2009 9:20 PM  

postergirl,

let me summarize what I am thinking, ask for a little help from my C4P colleagues, and then think about how I want to approach your comments, there's a lot of ground to cover

Here's a summary of the topics I see threaded into your posts the last two days:

- Sarah's intellect

- what constitutes an education that meets "Presidential" criteria

- absolute truth
- though we both agree that if someone stands in front of a train going 100 mph, they will die, no questions, this is not really the essence of the principle. The thing I am getting at is "Is there absolute transcendent truth" in non-empirical things (others could tackle this for me)

- Religion in general, Religion in politics

- Alaska Independent Party in general

- Todd Palin's membership in AIP

- Sarah Palin's frustration at how Steve Schmidt handled Todd's membership and what should she have done

- SP's qualifications to be President, in light of other Republican women

- Her resignation, what does this mean

Ok, so let me leave you with a few comments and questions.

As you can see, there are a lot of topics, each of which could take some time to discuss.

If you are willing to continue the conversation, I will do the same, as long as we at least acknowledge the others viewpoint and attempt to advance the discussion and not get stuck and engaged in verbal ping-pong.

So, let me leave you with some questions and thoughts about things you said that jumped out at me.

Questions:
- How old are you? That is just helpful to understand your perspective. I am 50 years old, but really, not that old :-)

- Where do you get your news from primarily ?

- Regardless of the discussion on absolute truth, how do you know anything is true ?
- Answer: in addition to your beliefs which we have discussed, my practical point here is that you trust the source

- Do you believe in the Bible? Why or why not ?

- In your Sun Jul 5 comments (11:04pm), you said
>> "[SP was part of] the type of church I find dangerous"
- So my question is, which church do you NOT find dangerous ? and what is your standard of which are dangerous or not?

- Which schools do you feel would qualify one to be President ?

- You asked if Steve Schmidt's advice on the Alaska Independence Party was on target.
- No, not in the least. He's a bully, an elitist, never wanted the hick from Alaska in the first place.
C4P, I could use a little help here.

- Funny, you and I saw the same speech of her resignation, read the same speech, and came away from two different conclusions.
- You said "there is no clear explanation"
- She stated why she's resigning in the speech !

- If when she says, "It's about country", then you say "No one knowing what the hell this means", then it's impossible to have a discussion.
- Are you seriously saying "It's about country", you couldn't even speculate? This coming from a hockey mom who is patriotic, family oriented, steeped in history, loves the USA and Alaska, you don't even fathom one iota of what she is doing ?

- Re: The Alaska Independent Party, from the Home Page, the top line is Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
- The rest sounds like independent minded people.
- Secession is not mentioned

Pick out a statement on their web page that you feel is about secession and let me know.

So, you see, there's a lot to discuss.

Like I said, if we advance the discussion I will stick around.

Hope you'r having a good week.

Postergirl July 6, 2009 10:01 PM  

Bill in Baltimore:

Just a quick comment (I swear, I may need to get glasses after all these weeks on the computer): I too enjoy a real discussion. Much appreciated, and I mean that. I may sound belligerent or incredulous at times when I discuss SP, but I'm just being honest (without being a b-word I hope). I may not spell check all the time (I noticed my errors in my last post), but that's for me not as important as having a pretty decent back-and-forth like this.

Tally ho - I'll be back (you write your answers and I'll write mine).

Bill in Baltimore July 6, 2009 10:43 PM  

postergirl,

no, definitely not the b-word, not even close. And hope I'm not the uh, you know, ha ha.

Ball's in your court, I posted at 9:20, quiz for you . . .

narciso July 6, 2009 10:57 PM  

Bill, can we close this thread, POstergirl, she doesn't care about the truth. No matter what the argument is, whether Trig is actually hers (undeniable)thar the AIP is secessionist (Vogler was but Lynette Clark wasn't neither was Walter Hickel who ran on their banner) regardless she wasn't a member of it, and Todd was after Vogler's death. She is a Christian but a feminist for life, there is no doubt that she doesn't love this
country, by her words and her actions. She has prudently run the state, she made the sacrifice of running for VP, and she paid dearly
for speaking truth to power about Obama.

Bill in Baltimore July 6, 2009 11:06 PM  

narciso,

I would like to see what postergirl says to my last comment with questions. It does seem like a brick wall but she is being nice about it and I emphasized that I would continue only if we were making progress. But I get your point (because we really aren't making much progress).

Postergirl, we are being asked to move on. In reviewing your post tonight, there really wasn't much new things you discussed from Sunday night's post. Have a look at my questions from earlier tonight and see what you think.

Postergirl July 7, 2009 1:53 PM  

Ah, there it is Bill.... Narciso butting in and wanting to close the discussion - preaching to the choir is so much easier and requires no thinking. I'll leave him or her to do that. He or she is right though, there is no convincing each other. But the point of our postings was to have a discussion regardless of that, because you and I were picking each other's brains, not hoping that the other would have a light-bulb moment and say "Wow! You're right! I'm so coming over to your way of thinking now!"

But I'm fine with stepping out from here. I think I've answered some of your questions (I do have another post for you), but I haven't heard yet about what about Palin aside from you agreeing with her views, makes her so qualified. I think she is a joke, unsuited for politics even at the State level, now confirmed by her quitting her job. If she is quitting because it's too tough to govern when there are ethics complaints, what hope does she have with running the country when there are MUCH, MUCH more pressing issues than citizens filing complaints?

I'll post once more if you wish me to reply to the post with your questions, unless Narciso is 'the boss of you', which I wouldn't take kindly to if I were you.

Cheers!
Postergirl

narciso July 7, 2009 2:01 PM  

I was right, she didn't care about the facts, she wasn't going to come around much like a whole host of others one has come across. I don't know If I'd say she's a troll. but confidence in what they don't know seems to be a hallmark.

Bill in Baltimore July 7, 2009 5:20 PM  

postergirl,

I'd love to continue the discussion off-line.

but do you really think she is "a joke" and not even fit to govern at the state level ?

that's a hard one to stomach, surely you could give her some credit, like for having been
- an effective mayor
- rooted out corruption in the Oil & Gas sector
- beat an INCUMBENT governor
- passed legislation to (AGIA) to build a pipeline for natural gas from the north shore to the lower 48.

seriously, you call that a joke ? If you do, we may as well bid adieu, wish each other well, and perhaps meet again another day and have some coffee.

william.peck at verizon net

Postergirl July 8, 2009 1:32 AM  

Ok, I'll continue the discussion off C4P. But I have to alert you that I really HAVE been spending too much time online and am trying to cut back. Of course, sometimes I can't help myself... the internet is like a bad habit for me. I'll try to finish my post and send it to your email in a day or two (I'm vowing to stay off my computer tomorrow).

Bill in Baltimore July 8, 2009 5:44 AM  

postergirl, ok, sounds good.

  © Blogger templates Newspaper III by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP