On Sarah Palin's falsehoods and the audacity of committing non-sexist, non-partisan journalism

Sarah Palin, with Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell and Sandy Parnell, March 14 2008
(four weeks and four days before allegedly giving birth to a six-pound infant)

This Monday evening, I wrote about Sarah Palin's strange and incredible tall tales, specifically, the ones surrounding the youngest Palin child (not counting the grandchild Tripp, fathered by Levi Johnston) whom Palin introduced to the world as Trig. As everyone is well aware, this little boy was born with Down Syndrome; on the day Senator John McCain announced his selection of Palin as his running mate in the presidential race, Trig's reportedly recent birth to the then-sitting governor of Alaska was trumpeted as concrete proof of Palin's staunch pro-life beliefs. Political observers across the nation and across party lines opined that Palin's selection was a stroke of genius--a way to recapture the enormous far-right fundamentalist Chrisitan vote for McCain.

And as subsequent poll numbers bore out, McCain did, initially, enjoy an enormous boost in his approval ratings.

Then, as journalists and bloggers began to delve into the stories themselves, and investigations turned up all manner of inconsistencies, outright lies, and biological impossibilities, an overwhelming tide of Don't Go There seemed to wash over everyone. Instead of pointing out that the Empress had no clothes, our national media and national blogs alike--with the Daily Kos leading the way--declared Palin's maternity fables off-limits. The very maternity fables from which she derived the bulk of her political power and enormous popularity with the country's large and powerful fundamentalist Christian/pro-life base.

I realize that for many readers--particularly those who live in blue states or liberal-majority cities, and who, like most of us lefties, tend to read mostly progressive blogs while shaking our heads at the overly-familiar-with-their-subjects, right-leaning media Sir Charles describes so eloquently--it may be hard to appreciate exactly how prevalent, how dominant and all-consuming, the fundamentalist mentality is in these modern United States. Please take my word for it, readers: it is a potent force, one that supplies the dominant warp and weft of our culture's tapestry, even as small-but-tough, multi-hued threads persist (and thank goodness for them).

I live in the South, and have done so since we emigrated to the States in the mid-1970's; before that, I attended a small school, one that was run by Mennonite and Baptist missionaries, in the mountains above Tegucigalpa, Honduras. Every day, lessons began with Bible study; every year, at least once, we'd have a visiting preacher lay hands on us, prompt some of the students to "speak in tongues", and warn us about the evils of the flesh that comprised our adolescent bodies. And we'd sit there on the floor, cross-legged and trying not to look at each other and giggle, knowing it would only be a matter of time before one of our more adventurous classmates broke into a teacher's car and found the stash of naked-girl or naked-boy magazines (or, sometimes, worse).

So all that said, let me put to rest once and for all any question about the fundamentalist mindset being powerful. If decades--nay, centuries--worth of stone-cold reality about human beings' normal red-hot desires cannot sway you from your religious worldview, or at least give you pause, make you wonder why it's okay for leaders (or preachers or teachers) to do one thing while telling you to do another...well, that's powerful stuff, readers. And in Florida and the South, as at my little school in Central America, that powerful stuff reigns supreme.

Fundamentalist Christian businessmen in our town won't re-wire our house, repair our plumbing, or install a glass shower door because Robert and I don't attend church, and politely declined their stern invitation to show up at theirs. I have spent a greater percentage of my life than I care to admit commuting--from this small, rural town through three counties and across a body of water--in order to have my children attend a school where they teach real science, not courses entitled God's Plan for Seeds.

So yes, Sarah Palin and her rabid fan base scare me. As they should scare you.

Science matters; facts matter; and always and forever, the truth matters.

Now, on to addressing a recurrent theme I encountered in emails to me and in comments at my post, both at litbrit, and at Cogitamus. Namely, the very same Don't Go There attitude that has permitted Palin to, as Andrew Sullivan so fittingly put it, dominate one-half the political divide for the past 22 months.

I find that attitude to be exceedingly sexist and unfair.

When male politicians who aspire to far less significant offices than vice president or president of the United States use their military pasts to build their political power, and appeal to a significant voter bloc, bloggers and/or traditional journalists (once they've been prodded) delve into the candidate's past with gusto. If they find inconsistencies and outright lies, they say so. They call the candidate on it, they demand proof of his assertions, and if they find out he lied about such a thing, they report this to the country. As well they should.

A man who says he has fought in combat--an act that is fraught with life-and-death decisions and details that would spin the heads of the more squeamish among his audience; that affects a person, both emotionally and physically, for the rest of his life; and the retelling of which narrative treads through extremely sensitive grounds--does so knowing he'll incur the admiration and support of a large, electorally significant group of voters.

A woman who says she has carried and given birth to a special-needs infant (after first satisfying her speech-giving obligations as governor, then, incredibly, flown across a continent while in labor)--an act that is, by any stretch of the imagination, fraught with life-and-death decisions and details that would spin the heads of the more squeamish among her audience; that affects a person, both emotionally and physically, for the rest of her life; and the retelling of which narrative treads through extremely sensitive grounds--does so knowing she'll incur the admiration and support of a large, electorally significant group of voters.

With the former candidate, any inconsistencies and lies in his narrative are dug up and military records--personal and sensitive as they may be--are called for and examined. Reporters might talk to those who served with him (if indeed he served); newspapers and televised news programs discuss the serious problem with his story.

In short, the candidate is asked to explain himself. The narrative--the heroic soldier bona fides--that helped define him as a man with a "servant's heart" is, at least most of the time, exposed as a partial or complete fabrication.

Yet with the latter candidate--who in this case is embodied by one Sarah Palin, former half-term governor of Alaska, vice-presidential running mate and likely, if not certain, presidential candidate in 2012--the vast sea of inconsistencies and outright lies in her narratives is simply accepted, or else acknowledged in private by those with functioning ears and eyes but never questioned fully and responsibly by our national media, and, to a great extent, by bloggers of any political persuasion.

Other than a handful of Alaskan bloggers, Palingates (which is written and read by Europeans and Americans and has unearthed and published a staggering amount of linked, on-the-record facts), Andrew Sullivan, and now, me.

This is unacceptable. I find it deeply troubling in ways that go well beyond the story of Palin, even. And I believe it to be sexist in the extreme that our press will investigate, and hold responsible for their lies, male candidates--and do so in the adversarial manner in which the press should approach its subject matter--yet when a conservative female is the topic at hand, everyone takes a Don't Go There attitude.

Worse, they ridicule, lambaste, and even harass those few writers, reporters, and bloggers who have the audacity to point out that the Empress has no clothes.

Once more, then, for our weirdly and inexplicably squeamish, sexist, ethically-challenged Barbecue Media:

The Empress has no clothes. Kindly investigate same.

Also at litbrit.

Comments

[joel hanes]

You want "incredible", not "incredulous"

That said : I treasure Palin, and hope she has a long career in Republican politics -- she was the lever that finally dislodged my mother and sister, both life-long Republican voters, from the clutches of the GOP. I didn't even have to say anything -- they both, independently, came to the conclusion that they could not vote for a ticket that included "that woman", or the man who selected her. My Mom, in particular, really liked McCain until he chose Sarah.

They aren't alone. GOP allegiance among women declined nationwide, and Palin is one of the major reasons.

[litbrit]

Fixed--thanks Joel. I do actually speak and write English pretty well, but the speed with which I had to get this one out led me to make that error. And I'm too poor to hire a full-time copyeditor. Little blogging joke ;-)

[kathy a.]

have you seen this post by a surgeon?

[litbrit]

Yes, Kathy. And he's only scratching the surface of the story, that is, whether or not such a "wild ride" could be possible. I'm glad to see a medical professional step up and denounce it for the fabrication it clearly was. I think if he continues to investigate further (not saying that he will, or even that he ought to, mind you), he would also come to the conclusion that the pregnancy itself was a fabrication--that someone else is the mother.

[DEO]

I would say since $arah's pedestal is built on sand it will fall...but so many tele-evangists are doing just fine.
I think $arah will always make a buck, alot of hucksters and grifters do. She has pulled the wool over alot of eyes.
$arah is a tap dancing vaudeville act, doing the SHIMMY to the tune of CHA-CHING.

[kathy a.]

D, several commenters over there also appear to be medical professionals, and all are skeptical to say the least. the "wild ride" story strikes them as insane if not impossible. several think that trig, whoever birthed him, was born some time in advance of his announced arrival.

joel, glad to hear sarah did some political good in your family! i have the sense that is true with many GOP-leaning women. her current support base seems to be the rabid anti-abortion people [who are currently trying to market her as a new kind of feminist ~snort~], and those befuddled tea-partiers.

[litbrit]

several think that trig, whoever birthed him, was born some time in advance of his announced arrival.

I think so too. But if people believe this, then they must also accept that Palin padded her suit in order to appear pregnant at the conference in Texas, as well as numerous public appearances (including one by a Canadian television station--will try to find the link--where she pats a square, clearly padded stomach and brags about her "firm abs"). Insane, I know. That's the point.

[kathy a.]

firm abs. right. because she was what, doing crunches at 7 months, with a high risk pregnancy? at that point, i couldn't see my feet without considerable effort, and i kept bumping my belly into things because i wasn't used to the bulk. neither of my kids was huge; son was under 7 lbs., and daughter just under 6; she was born 4 weeks in advance of due date.

[Paige]

Media did the same thing with George W Bush's Texas Air National Guard service.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

In fact there is a piece of evidence that, if it still exists, might prove this. (If it doesn't exist, it's because such tapes aren't customarily kept, not because of any sinister reason.)

We've argued that she couldn't have gotten on a plane in her 'advanced condition of pregnancy.' But if she were wearing her 'padded suit' she would have been stopped and questioned -- and how would she have explained it?

Now, if we could only find any camera footage from her in the airports, either she would have removed the padding, or we have to find a different explanation for how she got on the planes. ("She's a Governor!!! You can't stop her from flying, whatever the rules say.")

Anyway, it would be one of the more important pieces of evidence. Especially if it showed her going through any metal detectors -- would this be allowed for someone that pregnant?

[litbrit]

Especially if it showed her going through any metal detectors -- would this be allowed for someone that pregnant?

I seem to remember Jesse Gryphen (of the Immoral Minority) stating that she'd been given priority boarding (or similar courtesies that are extended to governors, diplomats, etc.) at both ends of the journey, so she would not have had to go through normal metal detectors or security, just shown ID.

[litbrit]

And yes, Kathy, I was enormous at seven months. At eight months, I had gone from my normal, non-pregnant weight of about 117 lbs to 180 lbs. I'm 5' 7 1/2", too. (Okay, so not every woman gains half her body weight again, but still). It was the same with each pregnancy, only I got bigger sooner with each subsequent child. I could not cross my legs while sitting at about the 5 month point, forget lean over, and absolutely forget doing crunches! There is a flesh-and-bone baby in there, for crying out loud!

I mean, really. There are women reporters who've given birth--how could they let this all just pass unchallenged?

A commenter over at my place had a good point: the only woman journalist who's a mother and who has "anchor power" is Katie Couric, and she'd already been marked as an "anti-Palin" person due to Palin's disastrous showing (unable to name any Supreme Court cases, when asked what newspapers she liked to read, said "All of 'em"). Still. It can only speak to how utterly male-dominated the news business is that no mothers could say, This is bullshit. I'm investigating this.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

I'd like to suggest an explanation that seems more probable, if less 'emotionally satisfying.' (Villains are always more fun to have around.) The media had been living 'The Boy Who Cried Wolf" for sixteen years -- from right and left.

"Wolf! Wolf! The Clintons killed Vince Foster (or were drug runners, or were millionaires through Whitewater" ... but there was no wolf there.

"Wolf! Wolf! Bush (or the Mossad) really blew up the Twin Towers" ... but there was no wolf there.

"Wolf! Wolf! The Republicans have fixed all the voting machines, the real votes won't matter." ... but there was no wolf there.

"Wolf! Wolf! Obama's really a secret Muslim born in Kenya and ineligible for the Presidency and hangs around with the terrorist Ayres." ... but there was no wolf there.

So when this story started getting around, isn't it far more likely that -- until they were able to get over the 'psychological impossibility' of a supposedly-vetted candidate being involved in this sort of fraud, until they had learned what Palin was really like -- they just went "Oh, no, not again!!!" and just didn't even bother to think about it.

[kathy a.]

i don't think i will ever forget katie couric sitting there with her mouth firmly shut, listening, and just blinking. blinking. taking a deep breath, and asking another question. and then blinking again in astonishment.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

We all had that expression -- several times -- the more we learned about the Baroness Munchhausen.