Although it’s coming a couple of year too late, Justin Elliott at Salon has written the definitive takedown of ‘Trig Trutherism’ and it comes to same conclusion I did when I looked into the matter a couple of years ago …
Trig Trutherism, the surprisingly resilient conspiracy theory that Sarah Palin is not actually the mother of 3-year-old Trig Palin, is experiencing a boomlet thanks to a new academic paper that endorses the concept. Long pursued by the blogger Andrew Sullivan and a significant segment of the Palin-hating left, Trig Trutherism holds that Trig’s real mother is either Bristol Palin or some third party, and that Sarah Palin herself faked the pregnancy to avoid embarrassment for her daughter or for political gain or some combination of reasons.
In light of the recent attention this subject has received and the considerable passion it has stirred, Salon embarked last week on an investigation of the circumstances surrounding Trig’s birth. The exhaustive review of available evidence that we conducted, along with new interviews with multiple eyewitnesses who interacted with a pregnant Sarah Palin up-close in early 2008 — most of whom had never spoken publicly about the matter before — has produced one clear conclusion: Sarah Palin is, indeed, Trig’s mother and there is no reason to suspect any kind of a coverup.
We’ve learned, for instance, that an Associated Press reporter in Alaska who was covering Palin during her pregnancy in early 2008 (before she became a national figure) thoroughly investigated rumors that the pregnancy was a hoax. The reporter directly questioned Palin about the matter in a private meeting in her Juneau office before she gave birth. Gov. Palin responded by voluntarily lifting her outer layer of clothing, offering a clear look at her round belly. The reporter quickly concluded that there was no truth to the rumors and never wrote about them. (emphasis mine)
Will it satisfy the unssatifiable? Of course not. Towards the end of his piece, Elliott covers the epistemological point well, discussing Andrew Sullivan’s seeming inability to accept reality on this issue.
Sullivan’s refrain on this issue is that he does not endorse any conspiracy theory, he is merely asking questions. He simply wants Palin "to debunk this for once and for all, with simple, readily available medical records." He hasproposed, for example, the release of "amniocentesis results with Sarah Palin’s name on them."
It’s worth noting that this posture is identical to the rhetoric used by Obama birthers (for instance, WorldNetDaily Birther czar Joseph Farah employs the "just asking for definitive piece of proof x" line here).
But the larger point is that continuously demanding more "proof" on an issue about which there is already overwhelming evidence is either irrational or disingenuous. And why would a piece of paper with amniocentesis results and Sarah Palin’s name be more dispositive than the doctor’s many statements and the testimony of all of the reporters who saw Palin pregnant? If you already believe everyone is lying and everything is a hoax, it wouldn’t.
What I don’t understand about this issue is why do they care?
Sarah Palin is not the President of United States. Where is the possible constitutional conflict in this as it relates to the concerns that the birthers have in Obama’s citizenship?
There are enough reasons to not like sarah palin without making things up. Just like there’s plenty of reasons to disapprove of obama. Just asking questions only works when the question hasn’t been answered a million times. When I first heard that obama wasn’t born in America, I wanted to believe it, but seeing no evidence to contradict his claim, I couldn’t believe it.
Skeptic: “I think maybe an alien landed at roswell.”
True believer: “an alien landed at roswell, and there’s nothing you could say that would convince me otherwise.”
Sullivan is obviously a believer. You could show him the home video of sarah giving birth to trig, and he’d still say, “well, that could be Hollywood magic.”
Is she fit to run for president should be the only question that should be relevant to sarah palin. I would say no, but indeed Trig is already more qualified to be a political commentator than andrew sullivan.
My grandmother (may she r.i.p.) would sum it up with the following words, and the wave of a hand.
Never argue with crazy people, Jimmy.
Lee, of course they are going to keep demanding proof - this is the same group of people that refuses to admit they are wrong, so the only tactic they have is the long stall, drag it out long enough for people to ignore it and then drop it quietly. And would hardly think that scathing criticism of Andrew Sullivan would be all that damning - he’s a perfect example of the type. He proclaimed that Noam Chomsky defended the Soviet Union, and when Chomsky asked for proof, Sullivan has never replied. For his ego and his sycophants, he can’t afford to be wrong, because if he’s wrong about thing, oh wow, what else might he not actually be accurate about? Then the whole delusional house of cards comes tumbling down. Yet somehow, when he proclaims someone else a liar (which he has about Palin), those propping him up seem to miss out on his own false claims (also odd considering he’s posted about the dangers of public blogging showing one’s intellectual fallacies; perhaps he just meant everyone else’s).
“continuously demanding more “proof” on an issue about which there is already overwhelming evidence is either irrational or disingenuous.”
Oh honestly! It can easily be both.
This is the umpteenth time Ive seen the moral equivalence card played between the trig truthers and the birthers. From my POV the birthers are a much closer parallel to the 9/11 truthers, where there is some debunking evidence and some ambiguity. Throw that into a pot with a dismissive or outright blackout by the media and its fertile ground for wild conspiracy theories. Its a legitimate form of investigation because if Bush was connected to 9/11 or Obama was not born in the country (or whatever issues the records he and Elena Kagan have been hiding show) thus rests the legitimacy of the ruling administration. An open and thorough investigation however unpleasant is absolutely the right way to go. The best cure for bad speech is always more speech.
A private citizen currently holding no office being asked to produce amniotic results? Absolutely if she was the queen and her son was claiming a right to the throne. Since that is not the case, maybe I am missing something, but I find it weird, creepy, and unprecedented. I am sure if the roles were reversed and a leftist female was being treated thus the left would be rightly up in arms. Anyway its a free country and he has the right to ask and I have a right to call him creepy and boycott his writings and site.