What’s the Point?
A recent Salon article on “Trig Thutherism”:
Trig Truthers have fixated on any number of details about Sarah Palin’s pregnancy. Sullivan, for example, thinks it was irresponsible that, shortly before she went into labor, Palin got on a plane from Texas, where she had been speaking at a conference, and flew to Alaska.
But whether Palin acted irresponsibly is beside the point. The most important tenet of Trig Trutherism, of course, is that Palin simply was not pregnant before Trig was born.
Whoa. “Whether Palin acted irresponsibly is beside the point”? Where did that come from? As far as I am concerned, it is the only point–that, during a special-needs pregnancy, after her water broke, she gave a political speech, took plane flights with a layover, and then trekked to a hometown hospital before giving birth. That quite simply makes no sense whatsoever. The writer of this article focused purely on whether or not Palin was the one to give birth. Frankly, that’s beside the point. The primary point is that, if we take Palin at her word, she acted with reckless irresponsibility. She’s either an idiot or a liar–or, possibly, both. The tale of Trig’s birth is emblematic of this.
Of course, since the whole Trig thing has so much baggage (personal lives are off-limit, don’t focus on children, people identify this as a loony conspiracy-theory kind of thing), it’s less than optimal to use this as a rallying point to show how Palin should never be allowed within a hundred miles of the presidency.
Fortunately, there is such a wealth of solid, factual evidence of this aside from the Trig story, this does not present a problem. The sheer number of lies, scandals, acts of irresponsibility, and fantastically stupid claims make for easy picking. From her claim that she fought the “Bridge to Nowhere” to her fictional “death panels” of the ACA, from Troopergate to resigning halfway through her term as governor so she could become a reality TV star and Fox News commentator, there’s virtually no end to reasons to question her capacity to serve in any position of responsibility.
Hell, just the idea that she persistently claimed that Alaska’s proximity to the farthest reaches of Russia magically endowed her with foreign policy credentials is enough for me. As for irresponsibility, the trend she set for politicians in elections to deny press access and communicate only through thoroughly biased sources is a huge one. I find myself wanting to go on (“In what way, Charlie?”), but the point should be clear–there is no end to the reasons why Palin should never be trusted by anyone. Just as well to leave the whole Trig mess behind. Indeed, focusing on the one thing Palin can most easily defend herself on only gives her strength and credence.
Once you realize people aren’t really rational, things become a lot clearer.
Stories are more important than facts.
And the biggest “story” going in peoples’ lives is this religious thing.
Much of this country is pro-religious, which means they are anti-abortion, anti-gays, anti-evolution, anti-secularism, anti-feminism, anti-freedom. These people may number somewhat less than 50%, more like 30%, but that’s one helluva base to build from, and is why the neocons convinced McCain to put Palin on the ticket in the first place.
Few people could tell you within $300B how much we’re spending on defense this year. Yet 56% say we can’t cut defense now — they’ve bought into the story that the DOD knows best how much they need to spend I guess.
I wonder if Japan has this problem. As a Japanese person, you should comment more on Japan’s issues too : )
I know this an unpopular opinion, conspiracy theory and so on, whatever, but the first time I saw Palin on stage with baby Trig, I had a gut feeling that he wasn’t her child. I wish I could make a bet, because I’d put down cash money on my hunch. I’m 98% sure of this.
“She’s either an idiot or a liar–or, possibly, both.”
Well, I’d put my money on both. Of course, I’m a big believer in “botherism”
(generally I believe where there’s a choice of either or, both, if possible, is the answer).
Of course there’s so much more negative about her. Let me highlight the strengths: She’s good looking and even sexy – and the fact that she’s a dingbat drives the superficial but overly hormonal male into comparisons of her with porn stars, some of whom dabble in politics – some how she comes off the same way as they do (political + dingbat but not serious so); she’s got good (albeit superficially so) communication skills – though her voice grates on me like fingernails on a blackboard; She can’t be all dumb as she’s making money hand over fist from some paltry foundation and she has us talking about her, almost three years after she got the finger placed upon her.
Conservative men like her for her politics and their pseudo-psycho-politico-sexual fantasies.
I think she’s another gingrinch – a political gadfly, looking like a politician with pretense for more is her current profession.
As an aside, wouldn’t the birth certificate have the baby’s rightful mother on it?