Tuesday, September 2, 2008

McCain’s Katrina, or maybe McCain's Eagleton

The Sarah Palin saga continues, and it’s riveting. I find myself flipping between the news channels for the latest, just as I did in 2005 watching Katrina unfold. I also find myself wishing the news media would go ahead and declare the Gustav story over and done so they can devote themselves completely to all things Sarah Palin.

But of course the Gustav story is not completely over. Evacuees from New Orleans have been ordered to stay away for now, although Mayor Nagin promises they are just days – not weeks – away from returning. Gustav did cause a lot of damage, and it will take some time to see if New Orleans will survive, even though it was spared the full brunt of Gustav’s fury.

But I want my Sarah Palin! And my wish will be granted, it appears. It appears that there are at least a couple different things going on with Sarah and her family. One of them is fairly straightforward. One of them isn’t.

What’s straightforward is that Sarah’s daughter Bristol is pregnant. In a manner reminiscent of an earlier time, Bristol has been living with an aunt in Anchorage, and attending high school there.

This is a family matter and does not directly belong in the electoral spotlight.

What does belong in the electoral spotlight: Sarah Palin supports abstinence-only education programs. What are the facts regarding abstinence-only education? Does it work, as measured by number of pregnant teens or lack thereof? This is something I would love to see the media run with. I’d love to see the facts regarding abstinence-only education presented coherently to the American people.

Meanwhile, there’s something else going on with the Palins, something less straightforward. And it’s leading to rumors. Those rumors have led to the press release regarding Bristol’s pregnancy. Whenever the rumors are mentioned in the press they are attributed to “liberal blogs” but seldom are more specifics given.

The Daily Kos is an Obama-supporting unapologetically liberal blog. I’ve not had occasion to read it prior to yesterday, although I’ve been aware of it.

Check that. According to my browser history I have read a few stories on the DailyKos before:


My point is that I’ve been aware of the Daily Kos, and have generally approved of its editorial stance (if the word editorial stance can be applied to a largely self-regulating collection of bloggers) until yesterday.

The Daily Kos appears to have taken note of a number of oddities concerning Sarah Palin’s delivery of her son Trig. The Daily Kos has then come to the bewildering conclusion that the child is not Sarah’s, but is Bristol’s.

That being said, what editorial control there is at the Daily Kos appears to have exerted itself. I cannot find today the Daily Kos column that I read last night, which had insisted that these oddities / facts add up to one inescapable conclusion.

Another rumor-mongering blogger – I don’t know if he’s liberal or not – that seems to be fanning the flames is Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic.

I don’t agree with the rumors, but something strange is going on. Here are the oddities:

  • When Sarah Palin announced her pregnancy in March, and stated her pregnancy was 7 months along, she didn’t look pregnant.
  • Sarah Palin began leaking amniotic fluid in Dallas at approximately 4AM Central Time on the 17th of April. That is at about 1AM in Anchorage.
  • After consulting by phone with her doctor in Alaska, Palin stayed in Dallas just long enough to give a keynote luncheon address.
  • She flew by commercial airline to Anchorage, Alaska, with a stop in Seattle. She arrived in Anchorage at 10:30 PM local time.
  • Once in Alaska her husband drove her an additional hour to their hometown medical center in Wasilla. What’s odd about this is that Anchorage hospitals are better equipped for a premature birth than the one in Wasilla. That being said, Wasilla is still counted as part of the Anchorage statistical area.
  • Her family doctor – the same one who delivered her fourth child, Piper – delivered Trig at 6:30 AM on Friday the 18th of April. The doctor, incidentally, is a founder of the Sexual Assault Response Team in the Wasilla area, and also a co-founder of The Children's Place in Wasilla. Basically, the doctor is active in the area of preventing and treating child abuse and neglect.

It seems to me that the Occam’s Razor explanation of events is simple: Sarah and Todd Palin really wanted their child born in Alaska, and delivered by their family doctor. In support of this simple theory, Todd Palin has been quoted as saying "You can't have a fish picker from Texas."

There is some question of Sarah Palin’s decision making (1) in giving the keynote address in the Dallas area after her amniotic fluid began to “leak”, and (2) in flying while over 7 months pregnant and possibly in labor. Evidently it is somewhat unusual for a woman more than 7 months pregnant to fly, because of the pressure changes encountered when flying.

Maybe it's simple. Maybe it's not. Either way something a little weird is going on, and it appears that it will impact the presidential race.

Also impacting the race will be Sarah Palin's membership in a group of Alaskan Secessionists.

It looks like Sarah is going to be McCain's Katrina. If not, perhaps she'll be his Eagleton.

3 comments:

legion said...

This is a family matter and does not directly belong in the electoral spotlight.

While true, I feel compelled each time I see someone state this, to remind them: the news was released by John McCain's own campaign.

And for bonus points, take a closer look... the news of Bristol's pregnancy was dropped specifically to counter rumors that had been swirling all last weekend that Sarah's infant son Trig was actually Bristol's child.

Let me just diagram that a little, because it's so insane: John McCain's political camp, to disprove rumors that Sarah Palin's 17-yo daughter was actually the mother of an infant child, dropped news that she was in fact currently pregnant. What kind of brain considers that chain to be logical?

HuckCrowley said...

One of the many blogs I was reading today stated that it was "almost impossible" for Bristol to be Trig's mom. That is, if Trig was born on 18 April and Bristol is roughly 5 months pregnant then it is "almost impossible" that Bristol is Trig's mother.

With that line of reasoning, then it does make sense for the McCain camp to release the news.

With my tinfoil hat on, though, I wonder if Bristol is really 5 months pregnant, or maybe 4 or less...

Still, let's give everyone the benefit of the doubt, because I don't see how society at large is impacted if Trig is raised by either individual. All things being equal, what does anyone gain by lying in this situation? The whole thing is just kind of weird.

Eric Francis said...

Back in my newspaperin' days, I'd be writing an editorial about this issue. Now that I'm out of that game, my only recourse is my blog ... and commenting on my friends' blogs. Lucky y'all! Here's my take on Bristol's pregnancy.

------

Bristol Palin’s pregnancy is none of your business


The announcement today that Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's daughter Bristol is pregnant has fueled a quick media surge covering the news.

That's fine. Let the coverage end there.

That's wishful thinking, of course. But there really is no news value in this issue, and that's because nothing about this story has any bearing on Palin's qualifications to hold the office -- and, specifically, it doesn't make a lie out of any of her previous positions or statements.

Young Miss Palin and her boyfriend made a mistake. It's a mistake repeated far, far too many times every year across this country. They and their families will deal with it in their own way and, barring some exceptional circumstances, exactly how they choose to deal with it really isn't the public's business.

What would make this a story? If this situation exposed some kind of hypocrisy or indefensible action on Palin's part. For example, if her daughter had become pregnant and Palin has assented to (or insisted upon) her having an abortion. Or if Palin had, in a truly bizarre scenario, encouraged her daughter to get pregnant. Or if she and her husband had thrown their daughter out of the house upon hearing the news.

But none of that happened. The Palins made it clear that their daughter still has their unconditional love. That's what this girl and her boyfriend need to hear right now. And that's all the public needs to know about the situation.

To my surprise, articles in both the Washington Post and New York Times websites raised the question of how conservative, evangelical supporters of the GOP would react to this news. Well, that's pretty obvious: They're going to approve of how the Palin family is handling this. Having grown up in the South, traditionally the most conservatively religious section of the country, I can tell you that among folks of that persuasion it is traditional to expect the couple to get married and have the baby. It's just what's done. So, if this has any impact on religious right voters, it will simply confirm that Palin is on the same page as they are, morally.

No, if there's any real news value to be found in this story, it comes from a statement made by Steve Schmidt, identified as a senior adviser to GOP presidential nominee John McCain. According to the Washington Post article, Schmidt reacted to the announcement and subsequent media coverage with this statement:

"We had hoped this could be an issue that was private, that the family could deal with this issue privately."

That so? We can assume, then, that the McCain campaign also frowned up on the media's (and the Republican Party's) feeding frenzy over Bill Clinton's affair with an intern. After all, it had nothing to do with his ability to perform in his office (pun intended) and was, rather, strictly "an issue that was private, that the family could deal with this issue privately."

Still, Schmidt also hit the nail on the head when he called this "a family matter ... life happens." And Barrack Obama struck the absolute right note with a statement reported by the New York Times:

"Our people were not involved in any way in this and they will not be," Mr. Obama snapped, his voice raised. "And if I ever thought there was somebody in my campaign that was involved in something like that, they'd be fired, O.K.?"
Mr. Obama said the pregnancy "has no relevance to Governor Palin's performance as a governor or her potential performance as a vice president." He added that, "my mother had me when she was 18. How a family deals with issues and teen-age children — that shouldn't be the topic of our politics."

Perhaps the best statement I've ever heard about was one made by Daniel Schorr, a senior news analyst at NPR who also had an esteemed career with broadcast television. When Bill Clinton took office in 1992 and someone criticized the fact he was sending Chelsea to a private school in Washington D.C. instead of public schools, Schorr summed up the absurdity of that argument quite concisely: "You don't make policy statements with your children."

You may approve or disapprove of the fact that Sarah Palin's teenage daughter is pregnant and marrying the baby's father. But it has no bearing on this campaign. And if you bring it up in any conversation I'm a part of, be aware that I will politely ask you to shut the hell up about it.