An ongoing, eclectic commentary on Unitarian Universalism, after retirement from active ministry--as I see it, practice it, and love it, with sidebars on life, love and the pursuit of happiness.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
What would it mean if this rumor is true?
That Trig Palin is actually Bristol Palin's baby, not Sarah Palin's. I don't know whether to trust the source I heard this from; the message came from someone I consider credible. I don't know what to think. For now I'm discounting it.
I have a hard time believing that that particular charade would be carried out in this day and age. Maybe when you were born, Auntie, although even then standards were beginning to change, but certainly not today. Teen pregnancy is simply not such a stigma anymore, especially for the girl's parents. Not to mention that Downs Syndrome is much more common with late-in-life pregnancies. (We had a brief scare about that with our last one.)
Given the high abortion rate for Downs Syndrome babies, I expect that the most strident feminist pundits will make an issue of her having borne one. Those are few, but they're noisy. Even in more moderate circles, I see the sexist potshots are already beginning to appear, just as racist cheap shots were leveled at Condi Rice. Have you noticed how many headlines refer to her as a "former beauty queen," rather than as a woman who was elected to run the most male-dominated state in the country?
A quick Google search for "Trig Palin Bristol Palin Sarah Palin" got me to the following article on Daily Kos:
Sarah Palin Is NOT The Mother http://dailykos.com/story/2008/8/30/121350/137/486/580223
We don't really know if this story is true or not at this time.
I guess we'll have to wait for the National Enquirer to investigate this story. If they confirm this story, the mainstream media will then cover it.
This wouldn't be the first time that a presidential campaign didn't full vet their VP candidate -- I'm sure that many of us do remember Eagleton in 1972.
It's awfully suspicious that her daughter was out of school with mono for 5 months before the child's birth, and the circumstances of birth are odd:
"While attending an energy conference in Texas, Sarah experienced a slow leak of amniotic fluid. After checking with her doctor, she stayed to deliver a 30 minute speech. She then flew home Alaska for the delivery. Although Sarah did not tell the pilot or flight attendants that she was 36 weeks pregnant, she said she did not hide her condition."
She flew for 8 hours, then, upon landing in Anchorage, went to her own small-town local hospital (where she had major connections) to deliver this high-risk baby.
She appears in many photos and videos during the period she was supposedly pregnant, and she doesn't appear pregnant in any of them -- including extensive video from what would have been her 6th month, hiking around Juneau. However, her daughter has quite a 'bump' in a couple photos from this period.
What does this mean, if true? It means she's lying. While I consider this normal behavior for Republicans, I suspect the fundamentalists are going to go nuts. It speaks to her character, and certainly makes her a more questionable choice for veep.
Covering up a teenage pregnancy is not unknown among this crowd, but it's always very secretive, because it's so shameful to them that their daughters, uneducated about contraception, keep getting into these predicaments.
If it helps, Joel, I read some of the most strident feminist pundits and I've heard Palin's choice to keep the baby brought up as an indication of her commitment to the pro-life cause, but not criticized in itself.
Honestly, I'm not sure why it would be criticized. Seems like a valid personal choice to me.
If the baby is four months old, Sarah would have been pregnant while in office. If it was not she but her 16-year-old daughter who was actually pregnant, they couldn't have faked that, not while living in the public eye.
Covering up a teenage pregnancy is not unknown among this crowd, but it's always very secretive, because it's so shameful to them that their daughters, uneducated about contraception, keep getting into these predicaments.
Maybe I should be covering up my unwed daughter's condition, then, Dan? I wouldn't want to be out of step with my crowd. :)
ChaliceChick, after I posted that, I put on my oxygen mask and read through places like Feministing and Pandagon, and while Governor Palin got called some nasty names, nobody had criticized her for having let the Downs Syndrome boy live. I slouch-over-the-keyboard corrected.
The fact that the baby has Down Syndrome seems a pretty likely evidence of a 40-something mother. The biggest argument I heard against Sarah being the mother is "Why would a 40-something mother of adult children get pregnant?"
Well, as you can guess, that isn't a terribly effective argument to me, my 20 year old daughter, or my 8 month old son.
Joel said - "nobody had criticized her for having let the Downs Syndrome boy live. I slouch-over-the-keyboard corrected."
Well if it will make you feel better Joel, one (fairly obscure) U*U blogger, harking back to the old Unitarian proclivity towards eugenics. . . snidely suggested that Sarah Palin was just a bit to ProLife in letting her Downs Syndrome boy live.
12 comments:
It would mean that the McCain campaign didn't bother to vet its Vice Presidential candidates carefully, which I really doubt is the case.
My guess is that it isn't true and this is a nasty smear against a 16-year-old girl.
I suggest we take the high road.
CC
I have a hard time believing that that particular charade would be carried out in this day and age. Maybe when you were born, Auntie, although even then standards were beginning to change, but certainly not today. Teen pregnancy is simply not such a stigma anymore, especially for the girl's parents. Not to mention that Downs Syndrome is much more common with late-in-life pregnancies. (We had a brief scare about that with our last one.)
Given the high abortion rate for Downs Syndrome babies, I expect that the most strident feminist pundits will make an issue of her having borne one. Those are few, but they're noisy. Even in more moderate circles, I see the sexist potshots are already beginning to appear, just as racist cheap shots were leveled at Condi Rice. Have you noticed how many headlines refer to her as a "former beauty queen," rather than as a woman who was elected to run the most male-dominated state in the country?
Good points, Joel.
A quick Google search for "Trig Palin Bristol Palin Sarah Palin" got me to the following article on Daily Kos:
Sarah Palin Is NOT The Mother
http://dailykos.com/story/2008/8/30/121350/137/486/580223
We don't really know if this story is true or not at this time.
I guess we'll have to wait for the National Enquirer to investigate this story. If they confirm this story, the mainstream media will then cover it.
This wouldn't be the first time that a presidential campaign didn't full vet their VP candidate -- I'm sure that many of us do remember Eagleton in 1972.
It's awfully suspicious that her daughter was out of school with mono for 5 months before the child's birth, and the circumstances of birth are odd:
"While attending an energy conference in Texas, Sarah experienced a slow leak of amniotic fluid. After checking with her doctor, she stayed to deliver a 30 minute speech. She then flew home Alaska for the delivery. Although Sarah did not tell the pilot or flight attendants that she was 36 weeks pregnant, she said she did not hide her condition."
She flew for 8 hours, then, upon landing in Anchorage, went to her own small-town local hospital (where she had major connections) to deliver this high-risk baby.
She appears in many photos and videos during the period she was supposedly pregnant, and she doesn't appear pregnant in any of them -- including extensive video from what would have been her 6th month, hiking around Juneau. However, her daughter has quite a 'bump' in a couple photos from this period.
What does this mean, if true? It means she's lying. While I consider this normal behavior for Republicans, I suspect the fundamentalists are going to go nuts. It speaks to her character, and certainly makes her a more questionable choice for veep.
Covering up a teenage pregnancy is not unknown among this crowd, but it's always very secretive, because it's so shameful to them that their daughters, uneducated about contraception, keep getting into these predicaments.
Much more info here:
Daily Kos Story
If it helps, Joel, I read some of the most strident feminist pundits and I've heard Palin's choice to keep the baby brought up as an indication of her commitment to the pro-life cause, but not criticized in itself.
Honestly, I'm not sure why it would be criticized. Seems like a valid personal choice to me.
CC
If the baby is four months old, Sarah would have been pregnant while in office. If it was not she but her 16-year-old daughter who was actually pregnant, they couldn't have faked that, not while living in the public eye.
I have to admit I find pursuing this theme distasteful.
There are plenty of appropriate issues about Governor Palin to ask.
For instance: her apparent absolute opposition to abortion in every circumstance.
For instance: her apparent belief that creation science be taught along side evolution.
For instance: her past support of Pat Buchanan's ultra-nationalist and only thinly veiled anti-semitic campaign for the presidency.
But not the circumstances of the birth of her son...
Let's not play with slime...
Thanks for the comments and I agree with James---there are plenty of other reasons to be doubtful about the choice of Palin as Veep.
Covering up a teenage pregnancy is not unknown among this crowd, but it's always very secretive, because it's so shameful to them that their daughters, uneducated about contraception, keep getting into these predicaments.
Maybe I should be covering up my unwed daughter's condition, then, Dan? I wouldn't want to be out of step with my crowd. :)
ChaliceChick, after I posted that, I put on my oxygen mask and read through places like Feministing and Pandagon, and while Governor Palin got called some nasty names, nobody had criticized her for having let the Downs Syndrome boy live. I slouch-over-the-keyboard corrected.
The fact that the baby has Down Syndrome seems a pretty likely evidence of a 40-something mother. The biggest argument I heard against Sarah being the mother is "Why would a 40-something mother of adult children get pregnant?"
Well, as you can guess, that isn't a terribly effective argument to me, my 20 year old daughter, or my 8 month old son.
Joel said - "nobody had criticized her for having let the Downs Syndrome boy live. I slouch-over-the-keyboard corrected."
Well if it will make you feel better Joel, one (fairly obscure) U*U blogger, harking back to the old Unitarian proclivity towards eugenics. . . snidely suggested that Sarah Palin was just a bit to ProLife in letting her Downs Syndrome boy live.
Post a Comment