Custom Search

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Andrew Sullivan On Liberal Media: 'Devoid Of Any Balls Whatsoever' #2

A couple voices of reason jump in, one being Harold Pollack, who writes over at Huffington Post, writing "Yuck on several fronts. We don’t have any evidence she did anything wrong here. If the baby was her daughter’s, what’s the problem here? Unless she actively prevented her daughter from having an abortion, we should leave this alone." (Later in the back and forth emails he does state he thinks the rumor is "intriguing")

After more emails back and forth where the list-serv group continues to obsessively go through the rumors which had started flying fast and furiously, Kathleen Geier of The Nation, seems to straddle the fence:

Aug 30, 2008, 9:13am
Obviously, neither Obama nor any other Democrat should touch this story. At all.

But — and that’s a big but — if it’s true, *of course* it would be an issue. And should be! Forget the issue of whether or not she denied her daughter the choice of ending her pregnancy — that’s not the issue. The issue would be if Palin is lying to the McCain’s people, and voters, and basically the world, by trying to pass off a child as hers, if it really wasn’t. Your kids are as much a part of your basic life story as when and where you were born, who you married, and where you went to school. If she’s trying to pass off a child as her own, when that child is actually her granddaughter — that is a huge freaking deal.

Now, that said, this does sound like a pretty wacky conspiracy theory. If there’s no evidence to it other than the fact that Palin allegedly did not look pregnant, and her daughter was allegedly absent from school, that’s an extremely slim reed to hang a story on.

However, if a reporter investigated this story and came up with compelling evidence that it’s true — such as documents or eyewitness testimony from medical professionals and the like — the media should have no compunctions about running with it.

But it’s such a wild story I seriously doubt there’s much to it. On the other hand, I thought the idea that John Edwards would risk having an affair and a love child in the midst of a campaign for president was preposterous as well. So you never know . . .

Obama and Dems shouldn't touch but it "could be true", wacky conspiracy but hey, you never know.......

Talk about keeping your options open... sheesh.

Back to Harold Pollack ( where he admits the rumor is intriguing), providing some statistics on Down Syndrome, to which the instigator of this thread Ryan Donmoyer rebuts:

Aug 30, 2008, 9:20am

> Biologically speaking, 18-year-old moms have
> better birth outcomes than 32-year-olds when everything else is right.
> After the baby is born–that’s another matter!)

Look, I’m not trying to stir this pot, but this thing is gaining traction on the chat boards.

Biologically speaking, most children with Downs Syndrome are born to women under age 35 (just as most children PERIOD are born to women under 35). I have no way of knowing, but let’s not assume there’s a statistically significant difference here. Let’s not immediately conclude that of course it’s Sarah Palin’s because she’s 44 years old.

Biologically speaking, which is more unlikely anyway: 1) A 17-year-old having a child with Downs Syndrome or 2) A 43-year-old woman conceiving without the help of medical intervention?

For what it’s worth, here is a photo of her from the Anchorage Daily News from mid-March, when she would have been 7 or 7 1/2 months pregnant:

Right, not trying to stir the pot as he is holding the dripping wet spoon that he used to stir it.

Read more

Page 1 2 3