Sunday, August 31, 2008

Okay...one post on Trig Palin

I've spent a lot of today deciding if the major rumors--that Trig Palin is Sarah Palin's grandson rather than her son--are true. I've concluded that they are not. Even the Daily Kos is backing off, pointing out that the Anchorage papers checked it out at the time. I buy it.

I'm pissed off it ever grew into something as big as it did. First of all, these nasty rumors hurt a 17-year-old kid unnecessarily. Second, it's shown that my party has its own whacked-out subset that will spread rumors with all the validity of "Barack Obama is a secret Muslim" variety...and that they'll grow just as big.

Still, the true story--that Sarah Palin gave a speech, drove to the DFW airport, flew from Dallas through Seattle to Anchorage, then drove 45 minutes to Wasilla, and did it all when she knew she was a 44-year-old woman leaking amniotic fluid--makes Palin look just about as bad.

I don't have to write why.

My HS buddy Jenni has done so just about perfectly.

9 comments:

Jack Bog said...

"The Anchorage papers?" That's it? Come on, TRP. There are so many unanswered questions. Just because some reporter who should have gotten the answers says everything's fine, you stop asking?

TeacherRefPoet said...

Why don't I ever believe in conspiracy theories?

Because somebody always talks.

Nobody from the hospital, school, or anywhere else has said a thing. There's money to be had and consciences to be cleared. It would have happened.

I'm not advocating stopping asking. There's nothing wrong with the media pursuing it...and they should. But I have found that, if a conspiracy requires more than 5 people to work, it falls apart. Someone always talks, and if they haven't by now, I think it's because there's no conspiracy and no story.

Don't forget all the bizarre inconsistencies in some aspects of Clinton's past used to suggest that Vince Foster was murdered, etc. Nobody cracked--because it didn't happen. Same idea.

Plus, you're only reading half of the sentence. Kos, where the whole thing broke, has reversed (albeit a different author). Why would they do that? Because they know all they have are some strange photos and school absences. That's not enough.

Sister Mary Martha said...

This is show is called Alaska HDTV presents "Alaska Podshow #190," which aired Febuary 20th, 2008.

About half-way through this show there's a 4 or 5 minute interview with Sarah Palin. She walks (hard to tell how far, but at least a mile given the change in scenery) to work and does not mention once that she's pregnant.

http://alaskapodshow.com/index.php/2008/02/20/my-visit-to-juneau-alaska/

TeacherRefPoet said...

I've seen that, Sister. It's circumstantial stuff--not enough to convince me that scores of people from politics, the hospital, the schools, Bristol's friends, and Sarah's friends could all maintain a perfect code of silence. Get more than 5 people involved--especially if you're including teenagers--and it'll break.

For those reasons, I have never believed a conspiracy theory. At heart, that's what this is.

Ennealogic said...

There are odd facts that keep popping up about this story. That the usual media outlets suggest it is okay to bury this one doesn't comfort me much.

Here's one fact: The birth of Trig to Sarah Palin reportedly happened at Mat-Su Medical Center, a small hospital near Wasilla, AK -- the town where Sarah was mayor. The doctor who reportedly delivered the 1-month-premature infant with Down syndrome was a family pracice doctor who specializes in working with children coming from sexual abuse backgrounds.

Another fact: the Mat-Su Medical Center has no facilities to handle premature babies.

Another: Dr. Baldwin-Johnson is not affiliated with this Medical Center. Instead, she runs a clinic she founded called Providence Matanuska Health Care.

Back to Mat-Su Medical Center... they list all births on pages on their Web site. For some reason, baby Trig is not listed on April 18, 2008, or any day within a week of that date.

I'm not saying the birth didn't happen... we see a baby Trig being held (in a motherly embrace) by Sarah's daughter in recent video as Sarah accepts the VP pick. But I do find it somewhat strange that a first lady of Alaska, knowing her advanced age pregnancy would result in a Down syndrome baby, would choose a family practice doctor and an out of the way rural medical center to birth the child.

Maybe I'm nuts, but there seem to be more than enough questions to look into this a little further. Why? Because I think any public official who lies needs to be exposed. If Sarah Palin is not lying, it should be easy enough to find out. And vice versa.

Jesurgislac said...

I agree completely - both that the speculation that Bristol Palin was "really" Trig's mother was hurtful and improbable, and that the real story shows Governor Palin made a potentially-disastrous decision - and I'm damn sure she lied about having the approval of her doctor to do it.

But speculating about Bristol Palin's physique is rude, hurtful, and unnecessary. Well out of order.

Mark said...

It is not a rumor or consipiracy. It is simply a lie by the governor. Look at the facts and the pix. It has just not been fully vetted by REAL press outside of the Alaska bubble papers. It's true and is just a matter of time until she has to fess up.

TeacherRefPoet said...

The conspiracy is the cover-up, Mark. In your version, all of Sarah's caregivers, Bristol's caregivers, Trig's caregivers, Bristol's friends, Sarah's friends/coworkers, other tangential hospital workers, some school employees, and probably a few other people I'm leaving out would have to have agreed never to tell a soul the truth, and they all would have to have pulled off their silence pitch-perfect so far.

That's the conspiracy. And, like all conspiracy theories, it's too bloody impossible to pull off.

Anonymous said...

Have you looked at palindeception.com? That's where the information is. One interesting thing from that website is the supposed official 2007 family Christmas photo in front of a wreath, that when compared to other 2007 photos of that wreath and the 2006 wreath, shows that the "2007" family Christmas photo is actually from 2006. In other words, the supposed 2007 family Christmas photo has the 2006 wreath in it, not the 2007 wreath. Why would they have put out a picture from the year before and call it the current year if there wasn't something (like a pregnant belly on a 17 year old) to hide?