Weigel and Trig-Truthers: A Point Of Clarification
July 15, 2010 § Leave a comment
Okay, so the pretty-awesome Dave Weigel, guest posting at The Daily Dish, cracks down on the people who think that there’s more to the story behind Trig Palin’s birth than meet the eye.
I’ve spent way too much time in the trenches of Birtherism, so I both 1) think “Trig Trutherism” is hard to compare one-to-one to that and 2) know that it exists in the same logical wormhole. It’s less important because Birtherism first started making news as a way for activists to raise doubts about whether Barack Obama could be on the ballot, then whether he could become president. The first article I wrote about birtherism was on the petitions to the Supreme Court demanding he be denied the office because he hadn’t sufficiently proven his citizenship. Once Obama was inaugurated, birtherism became a way for kooks to raise money off of the gullible, a reason for military officers to sue their president, and — most importantly — an issue for congressmen to sign onto and pander to constituents on. The polls are all over the place, but suggest that a sizable number of Republicans and conservatives believe in this nonsense.
“Trig Trutherism” is less serious. Were Sarah Palin to become president and everything the Trig Truthers believed to be proven right, it wouldn’t matter at all. But they won’t be proven right. All of the evidence indicates that Trig Palin is Sarah’s son, and none of it suggests otherwise. I paid close enough attention to this in 2008, and realized pretty quickly that the countervailing theories made no sense. Too many people watched Palin announce the pregnancy and saw her come along until she went into labor, prematurely, while attending a National Governors Association event in Texas. Here in Alaska, people tell me that Palin fans (who at one point made up 85-90% of Alaskans) held “baby showers” for her, and she’d drop in to thank them
Litbrit responds sorta too-seriously and overly dramatically with questions for Weigel.
How can you say–what proof do you have–that “it wouldn’t matter at all?”
…As you no doubt remember, one of the very first pieces of information released about Sarah Palin to the media in August 2008, in fact–after her name and the fact that she was the sitting governor of Alaksa–was that she was such a strong pro-life candidate. So strong a pro-life candidate was she,earlier in the year, she had carried and given birth to a Down Syndrome baby.
… So, to rephrase my intial question, as pertains to the first of these big lies about Trig: If a male candidate for high office described an act of bravery in war that never happened, complete with details about leaking body fluids, and he were elected president, and then it was proven that said story was just that–pure fabrication–is it your contention, Dave, that it wouldn’t matter at all?
I think this is a misread on the part of Litbrit. I’m pretty sure that the point Weigel was trying to make was that Birthers and TrigTruthers were different in that, if the Birthers are right, Obama is constitutionally unable to hold the office. If the TrigTruthers are right, Sarah Palin is just a shitty person. She could still hold office if she didn’t give birth to Trig. Put another way: if both Orly Taitz and Andrew Sullivan were correct (and I’m not equating levels of batshit here by any means), only Taitz’s claims would have legal consequences. She’s right, and you can probably make arguments that every law he’s signed is invalidated. He’s right, you just have a sociopath running for office.
I don’t think that Weigel would suggest that if Sarah Palin was proven to have made such a big lie, a lie about such a personal issue, that it would be immaterial to her fitness to hold office. He’s too smart for that.