Daily Dish Has Good Post on Trig Palin
Words of wisdom about Trig Palin over at The Daily Dish, Andrew Sullivan’s site.
No, I’m not kidding. I’m quite serious.
He has a guest blogger.
That blogger states: “I strongly believe that there is nothing to this story.” He quotes Sully’s complaint that there is no record of Trig Palin’s birth as “highly misleading,” because the list is voluntary. “Trig not being on this list isn’t proof of anything.”
The easiest way to disprove these conspiracy theories is to consider what would be required for them to be true. Palin’s doctor, along with a good number of Mat-Su Regional’s doctors, nurses, and administrators would need to be in on the cover-up. On multiple occasions Palin would have had to pad her belly to make herself look pregnant. She would have needed to get friends to lie about seeing her breast feed. She would have had to silence an entire community – including two 17-year-olds and their friends – while the national media and the National Enquirer snooped around. Implausible to say the least.
I vote this guy stays.
Perhaps Mr Sullivan can set him up as a juror.
From what I read here, Mr Sullivan can use all the help he can get.
THe conspiracy theorist in me wonders if Mr Sullivan has finally realized that he’s trashing his reputation — such as it is — with this story. He brings in a guest blogger to put an end to the whole thing, and then, when Mr Sullivan returns from whatever airport bathroom he’s inhabiting, he just never mentions it again.
Comment by The Dana who never reads silly Sully — 12/9/2008 @ 6:27 am
Not only would all these people have been required for the conspiracy, but the governor would have put together this elaborate scheme for some undisclosed motive. The original suspected motive was that she was covering for her teenage daughter. Now that it is clear that her teenage daughter had her own pregnancy during the time of Trig’s gestation, that motive doesn’t work anymore.
Moreover, who is supposed to be Trig’s mother, if his mother is not Sarah Palin? Are to suspect that Sarah Palin pulled off an elaborate scheme requiring the cooperation of a large group of people so that she could claim to be the mother of a disabled child who is actually the child of some other undisclosed person? Yeah, that makes sense.
Comment by PaulD — 12/9/2008 @ 7:42 am
Sullivan ought to rename his blog “The Daily Dog[#@^&] Dish”, because that’s mostly what it contains–recycled dog kibble. The man is simply deranged, long ago having moved into Keith Olberman territory.
As for K.O.–what is he going to do for shtick in the Obama era? You can only lick the bottom of the Anointed One’s shoes so many times before people get bored of the act.
Comment by Mike Myers — 12/9/2008 @ 7:49 am
If Sullivan is only ‘asking questions’ like a good citizen making high officials supply documents when they’re supposed to – then he supports Obama Trutherism, right? Right?
I’m 100% convinced that Obama was born in Hawaii, and hence, is a U.S. citizen eligible to be President. But those who ‘ask questions’ and demand evidence from Obama, do so with far better reason than Sullivan does with Palin. (Because the questions about Obama, or any new President, are written into the United States Constitution.) Surely Sullivan supports both?
Comment by ellersburgwhoresonellis — 12/9/2008 @ 8:03 am
Considering the number of people that thought Mark Furman and the rest of the LAPD participated in a complex conspiracy to get Simpson, the idea of a little conspiracy in Alaska looks pretty reasonable.
If Sully thinks the Juice is innocent then a frozen conspiracy is a piece of cake.
Comment by MU789 — 12/9/2008 @ 8:28 am
ellersburg: you’re expecting lunatics to be consistent. And even those who are crazy for a good cause are still crazy.
Comment by Steverino — 12/9/2008 @ 8:37 am
Nooo! What a sell out! Trig is the real child of Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama, Senior. I demand that Ann Dunham and Barack Senior be exhumed for DNA matching to confirm or disprove Trig’s parentage. Why would it be refused if there is nothing to hide?
Comment by nk — 12/9/2008 @ 8:55 am
I still think Sullivan is having dementia problems and this might be coming from the management.
Comment by Mike K — 12/9/2008 @ 8:58 am
Trig Palin is my child. There, the truth is out.
Comment by tim maguire — 12/9/2008 @ 9:31 am
Comment by tim maguire — 12/9/2008 @ 9:31 am
Only in your “fantasies”!
Comment by Another Drew — 12/9/2008 @ 9:34 am
This was amusing the first few times, but it is has become vile and a dereliction of the Atlantic’s editorial responsabilities,(satire, I know) in allowing one of their leading bloggers, to effectively try to ‘delegitimize some one’s standing as a mother’ and as a woman, because you don’t agree with her politics. Then again, he didn’t say much when they hung her in effigy in West Hollywood, or he actually linked a soft core music video parody; on his site. Mr. Apfel, your efforts are too little, too late.
Comment by narciso — 12/9/2008 @ 9:36 am
And Patrick manfully tries to stuff three months’ worth of horse apples back into the horse.
Good luck with that.
Comment by Rich Fader — 12/9/2008 @ 10:04 am
That was succint and to the point, Rich. The Atlantic has really squandered it’s hundred and fifty year reputation, for no good reason.
Comment by narciso — 12/9/2008 @ 10:10 am
The Trig Palin story is a minor matter compared to this. Sarah Palin can fight back; this woman couldn’t.
Marjorie Christofferson is — or was — the manager of El Coyote a restaurant in LA founded by her Aunt. She gave $100 to Prop 8. Today Lisa Derrick of the Huffington Post is reporting she has resigned in the face of an ongoing onslaught of threats against the restaurant, which had nothing to do with her personal donation.
The hatred goes on.
Comment by Mike K — 12/9/2008 @ 11:04 am
So we take Palin on her word, but we are up in arms about Obama providing his proof of natural born citizenship (just not to our liking). Amazing guys. I think we have officially reached the point of critical mass hypocrisy. I will mail you all the official certificate of crazy-cation.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/9/2008 @ 11:07 am
Wanker, jg.
Comment by Another Drew — 12/9/2008 @ 11:10 am
AD, I suspect when you look up the word “projection,” you see a mosaic of the trolls here.
Comment by Eric Blair — 12/9/2008 @ 11:22 am
EB-projection must be the vocab word of the week. I have seen it being used waaaayyyy too much on here recently to be used effectively. What is the second word on the vocab list? Can we practice using that word in a sentence for a while? Is it megalomania?
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/9/2008 @ 11:25 am
As original as the cleverly crafted insult “Junior Detective?”
Comment by Jack Klompus — 12/9/2008 @ 11:26 am
What can you expect from “Wanker, jg”?
Comment by Another Drew — 12/9/2008 @ 11:27 am
So we take Palin on her word, but we are up in arms about Obama providing his proof of natural born citizenship (just not to our liking).
This is so stupid, I can’t believe a human being posted this. Tell me you are a spam bot so I can believe again.
Comment by Mike K — 12/9/2008 @ 11:34 am
His arguments are so elementary that it simply cannot be ignored that Junior Detective fits in so nicely with his handle.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/9/2008 @ 11:34 am
I know it is stupid, Mike K. Imagine it: a world in which citizenship in a country can never be proved with any level of documentation. Kind of Twilight Zone-esque, isn’t it?
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/9/2008 @ 11:37 am
The word you’re searching for is “Kafka-esque”.
Comment by Another Drew — 12/9/2008 @ 11:47 am
truthnjustice,
You aren’t familiar with the citizenship case. I think a certain level of documentation would satisfy virtually everyone. They aren’t sure that the COLB (which does settle the issue for me) was gnuine or just some crap on DailyKos. They are wondering about Obama’s supposed claim to be a citzen of another country (not relevant to his eligibility in my opinion).
Sure, very few sincerely believe Obama isn’t eligible. But they are asking for a minimal effort on his part to answer some easy questions and satisfy the constitution. If Obama has something embarrassing (unrelated to eligibility) or if he’s just tired of this line of attack isn’t clear to me, but the flavor of the attack is borne of mistrust that Obama is at fault for. He’s hidden so much information from us… we don’t really know who this guy is. Some people get paranoid when dealing with someone like that. It is fair to ask if that COLB is accurate, and given the situation, it’s not unfair to ask why it’s been handled in such an oddball manner by Obama.
That’s the complete opposite of the attacks on Palin and her family… which had nothing to do with the law.
Comment by Juan — 12/9/2008 @ 12:06 pm
The two issues do not even have parity.
Rumors and demonstrable falsehoods aside; Governor Sarah Palin’s previous pregnancy is a private matter, at least among decent people (not to mention, who in their right mind would feel free to attack a woman and newborn– disgraceful).
The President-elect’s legal obligations to satisfy the requirements of the Law are a public matter; as such, civic minded citizens arguably have a duty to discuss it (which in my humble opinion he has satisfied, but it is certainly reasonable to debate in light of his refusal to release something as benign as a Birth Certificate – he brought this upon himself).
Comment by Pons Asinorum — 12/9/2008 @ 12:10 pm
Pons: The supreme court seems to feel that there isn’t really anything to debate.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/9/2008 @ 12:13 pm
I agree, probably is not.
However, the people may still have questions because of the President-elect’s decision to not reveal his Birth Certificate. How does this issue have moral parity with the disgraceful stories about Governor Palin ?
Comment by Pons Asinorum — 12/9/2008 @ 12:21 pm
Again, I find Flamin’ Andy’s fascination with gynecology and obstetrics more than a little disturbing and icky.
And Barack Obama has never proved that he WASN’T a Muslim, has he? See how easy that is?
Comment by furious — 12/9/2008 @ 12:23 pm
truthnjustice, you’re a pretty good troll.
The supreme court denied cert, but that’s not exactly a ruling. And that the dispute about Obama is occurring in the courts should tell you something: it’s a LEGAL ATTACK. There is nothing wrong with mounting one and playing by the rules.
You equating that kind of thing with the hideous attacks on Sarah and her kids shows that you are a monstrously immoral person. there was no reason to attack Sarah on these irrelevant and very ugly attacks beyond smearing her with sex scandals. You find that to be the equivalent of taking a democrat to court because you can’t see past the R or D.
But subpoenas were issued today over the Rezko Obama house deal, were they not? The Court still has many challenges to Obama’s eligibility to deny (which they will, of course). It’s not going to end. One day, someone will find out whatever the hell Obama is hiding in his records, and then it probably will be little more than some embarrassing factoid and you can equivocate between that and Sarah. Until then, anyone claiming a lawsuit over a basic constitutional point is the equivalent to Trig trooferism is a jerk.
Comment by Juan — 12/9/2008 @ 12:25 pm
The President-elects legal qualifications (and the controversy surrounding them) are a legitimate concern of the electorate.
Trig Palin is not. I guess it is one of those things that if you have to have the answer explained to you, you will not understand it.
Comment by Pons Asinorum — 12/9/2008 @ 12:26 pm
“…You equating that kind of thing with the hideous attacks on Sarah and her kids shows that you are a monstrously immoral person…”
More than one persons’s perception is at odds with the self-proclaimed faith of one who would engage in such attacks over a personal, private matter.
Comment by Another Drew — 12/9/2008 @ 12:35 pm
truthnjustice, that really was quite typical of the frankly bizarre and incoherent equivalencies that you’ve come up with.
Comment by SPQR — 12/9/2008 @ 12:48 pm
Furious, I just clicked on your link– that is absolutely hysterical. LOL !!
BTW: I loved the Wrath of Khan; excellent selection.
Comment by Pons Asinorum — 12/9/2008 @ 1:01 pm
Marjorie Christofferson is — or was — the manager of El Coyote a restaurant in LA founded by her Aunt. She gave $100 to Prop 8. Today Lisa Derrick of the Huffington Post is reporting she has resigned in the face of an ongoing onslaught of threats against the restaurant, which had nothing to do with her personal donation.
It’s the way of the world, Mike K. Don’t do nothing that you do not have the power to prevent the consequences of. My liver sent me that message recently with elevated ALT and AST.
Comment by nk — 12/9/2008 @ 1:39 pm
McCarthyism lives.
Comment by SPQR — 12/9/2008 @ 1:42 pm
Why did all of you take the bait and let truthnjustice change the subject? This thread is about Sullivan, not Obama.
Comment by Icy Texan — 12/9/2008 @ 2:01 pm
There are only so many ways one can look at Sullivan and conclude that his judgments, ethics, and morals are reprehensible. It is self-evident to a reasonable person. By the 8th post it was over.
Then a ludicrous argument is presented trying to create a moral equivalency with between Sullivan and Palin.
Like shooting fish in a barrel, I could not resist (and it appears neither could posts: 16, 21, 25, 26, 28-33).
In short, it was fun, easy, and satisfying.
Please feel free to resume the Sullivan analysis (if you can stand the smell).
Have fun–
Comment by Pons Asinorum — 12/9/2008 @ 2:38 pm
Juan wrote: One day, someone will find out whatever the hell Obama is hiding in his records, and then it probably will be little more than some embarrassing factoid and you can equivocate between that and Sarah. Until then, anyone claiming a lawsuit over a basic constitutional point is the equivalent to Trig trooferism is a jerk.
…and the rest of you know who you are.
Amen, Juan. Keep bustin’!
Comment by L.N. Smithee — 12/9/2008 @ 2:55 pm
Hey, TMJ:
Actually, the next word for YOU is: hypocrisy. And here is another word: twee.
I think you can guess how most of us would use those words in a sentence, to describe your usual antics.
Comment by Eric Blair — 12/9/2008 @ 3:13 pm
“Projection” is overused, but that’s because TMJ does so much of it.
Comment by SPQR — 12/9/2008 @ 3:15 pm
#5 MU789
Does Sullivan think O.J. is innocent? It wouldn’t surprise me. I really don’t know if you said this tongue-in-cheek or not.
Comment by m — 12/9/2008 @ 3:52 pm
I’m sorry, but when I read “Andrew Sullivan” and “tongue-in-cheek” in the same post, I throw up a little bit.
You?
Comment by Eric Blair — 12/9/2008 @ 5:47 pm
Comment by Eric Blair — 12/9/2008 @ 5:47 pm
Touché!
Comment by Another Drew — 12/9/2008 @ 6:02 pm
Dear AD: I would rather not touch that at all. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Comment by Eric Blair — 12/9/2008 @ 7:57 pm
Eric Blair sure does go to great lengths to make sure everyone knows how disgusting he thinks gays are. Too much, methinks.
Comment by Festivus — 12/9/2008 @ 7:59 pm
Oh, on the contrary, Festive One. I have no problem at all with gay folk.
What I have a problem with is Andrew Sullivan.
Comment by Eric Blair — 12/9/2008 @ 8:17 pm
It’s impressive that you were able to type that while clutching your pearls.
Comment by Jim Treacher — 12/9/2008 @ 8:17 pm
All your flirting with Another Drew made that pretty clear. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, amirite?!
Oooh…a witty riposte! Not cliched at all. Tell me one about a fainting couch, next, please.
Comment by Festivus — 12/9/2008 @ 8:22 pm
I have it on good authority that the “guest” blogger is actually Andrew Sullivan himself. Having recently graduated from rehab, he is drug free and lucid for the first time in years and is seeking to make amends for his many previous delusions – first of which is his claim to be a conservative.
I’m told that within a short time he will post a confession – he’s a liberal.
Comment by Antimedia — 12/9/2008 @ 8:30 pm
Ah, trolls. Probably this is one we have seen under several other names in the past.
Comment by Eric Blair — 12/9/2008 @ 9:07 pm
I don’t mean you, Antimedia. You might be correct!
Comment by Eric Blair — 12/9/2008 @ 9:07 pm
Somebody was flirting with me?
I didn’t even get a free drink.
Bummer.
Comment by Another Drew — 12/9/2008 @ 9:17 pm
I think he/she/it was talking about me, AD. Then it called me an “amirite,” which must be some kind of degenerate sect from his part of the world.
Comment by Eric Blair — 12/9/2008 @ 9:56 pm
I guess that is what I get for insulting Andrew Sullivan.
Comment by Eric Blair — 12/9/2008 @ 9:57 pm
It must lead a very busy life if it is concentrating on those who have insulted The Randy One.
Comment by Another Drew — 12/9/2008 @ 10:00 pm
I give only God the right to judge my morality, but thanks for offering an opinion on a complete stranger’s life. Could you, perhaps, tell me with the same confidence how my new haircut looks? You seem to fancy yourselves quite adept at judging things of which you have no real knowledge.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/10/2008 @ 3:19 pm
Not so sure about that Truthnjustice.
Do we not all give society the right to judge the morality of individuals to a certain extent?
At one extreme, look at creatures like Charles Manson, Jim Jones, Ted Bundy, etc. Making moral judgments about them was not only proper, but just.
At a lesser extreme, if I was late for my job, and choose to run a red-light and ended-up harming a totally innocent person, would it not be okay and proper to make a moral judgment on my behavior?
Perhaps, we as human beings that choose to live together as citizens must allow others to make such judgments to a certain extent (there is no-way we could live together without such a concession). To what extent should societal judgments be made is a good question. I certainly do not always have the answer.
But sometimes I do (it is just obvious).
For me, I draw a very hard line when a man attacks a mother and her newborn. This Sullivan is despicable (akin to the same mentality that has no problem preying on women and children).
If you choose to defend him, it is your lawfully given right, but it does speak volumes about your moral code. Furthermore, if you choose to publicly display this behavior (like in a blog), fully expect such morality to be discussed and mocked.
Surely you could speak to the contemptible actions of Sullivan without compromising your values or political leanings — and without pointing to other bad behavior (with or without parity) to justify the actions of Sullivan.
Comment by Pons Asinorum — 12/10/2008 @ 4:17 pm
Running a red light is not a moral issue.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/10/2008 @ 4:45 pm
It can be, depending on the circumstances.
Comment by DRJ — 12/10/2008 @ 5:01 pm
As DRJ stated, depending on circumstances—
If I am late and decide to disregard the safety of others because of my own selfish interests, and then choose to deliberately run a red-light, subsequently harming an innocent person in the process, that is morally wrong.
Of course an accident is entirely different, but as DRJ stated, it depends on the circumstances.
Beyond all of that, where are you with Sullivan (come on TnJ, I know you like to debate and argue, but is this not one moment where we can agree, not as partisans but as people– a mom and her newborn deserve better than this).
Comment by Pons Asinorum — 12/10/2008 @ 5:33 pm
Running a red light is not a moral issue.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/10/2008 @ 4:45 pm
Um, what?
Of course it is. Deciding to break a law is ALWAYS a moral issue. Sometimes it’s morally right (no one is around and you need to get your injured child to the hospital, fast) and sometimes it’s morally a little teeny bit wrong (you just don’t feel like waiting your turn like other people do but you do it carefully cause you don’t see anyone coming toward the green light) and sometimes it’s quite a bit morally wrong (you’re not careful and you could give two hoots who’s coming the other way because you’re the most important one driving and you’re late for a meeting, dammit!).
But it’s ALWAYS a moral decision to run a red light.
Comment by no one you know — 12/10/2008 @ 5:48 pm
Unless you don’t have any in the first place?
Oh, don’t they call that being a sociopath?
Comment by Another Drew — 12/10/2008 @ 5:55 pm
Ohhh, Another Drew learned a new word. Are we going to use that instead of ‘projection’ every other post for the next 2 weeks?
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/10/2008 @ 8:17 pm