The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Having Met Todd Palin …

Posted on | April 14, 2011 | 130 Comments

. . . I would advise anyone to avoid ever insulting the man. He is not particularly tall, nor ostensibly stocky, an easygoing, modest and quiet man by nature. Mr. Palin reminds me very much, however, of certain fellows I grew up around and, if I judge the man rightly, you’d never want to make him angry.

When such a man decides you’re in need of a good old-fashioned ass-whupping, he’s unlikely to deem you worthy of advanced warning. Which was why I posed a question to Mr. Palin’s wife via Twitter:

Dr. Bradford Scharlott is an associate professor of communications at the University of Northern Kentucky, who has called attention to himself by publishing a 29-page “academic” treatise, the essence of which is an allegation that Todd Palin is a liar:

The theory is that Sarah Palin is actually the grandmother of her purported son Trig, not the mother, and that she staged a gigantic hoax during the campaign to cover up this fact. . . .
Scharlott’s article walks through all the evidence supporting the theory, including the photos of Palin in what is said to have been a late-stage pregnancy, the leisurely 20-hour trip home that Palin took after she supposedly went into labor in Texas, the refusal of the hospital where Trig was supposedly born to even confirm that he was born there (let alone who was the mother), strange statements from Palin’s doctor and the McCain campaign, and so on.

As I say, I have met Todd Palin, seen Trig scamper around the living room of the Palin family’s lakefront home in Wasilla, and watched Todd read a storybook to the adorable little tyke. Todd just rolled his eyes in disgust at my cautiously indirect mention of the “Trig Truther” nonsense, but I’d double-dog dare any of those fools to try presenting the so-called “evidence” for their lunatic theory while Todd Palin was in the room.

Yet I didn’t need to meet Todd and Trig to recognize Trig-Trutherism as lunacy. In August 2009, while dealing with vicious anti-Palin blogger “Audrey,” I wrote: 

[T]he moonbats are insinuating that Bristol is actually Trig’s mother, and Sarah his grandmother . . . Such insinuations collapse at first contact with reality:

What the Trig Truthers are trying to insinuate is that Bristol gave birth in April, conceived again almost immediately after Trig’s delivery and then, barely eight months after the birth of her first child, delivered her second child — healthy and apparently full-term — shortly after Christmas.
To the extent that this is not a medical impossibility, it certainly seems both unlikely and unnatural to say nothing of what we bloggers sometimes call “nucking futs.”

So if Palin’s pregnancy was a “hoax,” if she faked a pregnancy to disguise the fact that Trig was in fact Bristol’s child, this would seem to require that mere days after giving birth to Trig — scarcely permitting time to heal from that experience — Bristol became pregnant again so as to give birth to full-term baby Tripp exactly 255 days after giving birth to Trig.

Normal gestation period is 40 weeks (280 days). There have been instances where, impatient with the normal post-partum healing period (six weeks is usually recommended), ardent couples have conceived again within a month or two of giving birth.

Such are the circumstances of the phenomenon commonly called “Irish twins,” two babies born to the same couple less than a year apart. But it is ludicrous to suggest that this could explain Trig and Tripp as both being Bristol’s babies: At a bare minimum, allowing just two weeks after an April 18 childbirth before she again ovulated, this would put the second conception date no earlier than May 2. A second baby born Dec. 29 would make the gestation period for Tripp just 241 days — more than a month premature.

How many 34-week babies weigh 7-and-half pounds?

As if this were not in itself ironclad disproof of the Trig-Truther theory, there is still the matter of Trig being born with Down Syndrome and, as I first pointed out on Sept. 1, 2008, this is a condition closely correlated with advanced maternal age. At age 44, the odds of Sarah Palin giving birth to a child with Down Syndrome were 1-in-140, compared to 1-in-1,400 for a woman under age 25. Given that Gov. Palin was thus ten times more likely than Bristol to give birth to a Down Syndrome child, and in light of the more-or-less impossible odds against Bristol giving birth to a 7-and-a-half-pound baby after a 34-week gestation . . .

Well, what part of “nucking futz” is so hard to understand?

It’s crazy, is what it is, and the craziest part of it is that these fools are calling Todd Palin a liar. By my calculations, the campus of Northern Kentucky University is just about a 15-minute drive from the airport in Florence, and if Professor Scharlott gets the ass-whuppin’ he deserves, don’t say I didn’t try to warn him.

UPDATE: Jesse “Gryphen” Griffin claims that he corresponded with Scharlott for two months, and that Scharlott shared an advance draft of this paper with him. This indicates that Scharlott is knee-deep into the festering swamp of Palin Derangement Syndrome.

UPDATE II: Kudos to former Palin spokesman Bill McAllister who, upon receiving a copy of Scharlott’s paper, called the professor “despicable” and a “scoundrel.” McAllister declared: “If we ever meet, I’ll slap you. . . . In a different era, I’d challenge you to a duel.”

McAllister wrote an op-ed column for the Alaska Dispatch, explaining how Scharlott’s paper tries to connect dots that aren’t actually connected. But this is what conspiracy theorists always do, and why any reputable university would employ such a despicable scoundrel is beyond me.

UPDATE III: Justin Elliott of Salon notes that the Scharlott paper is being “shopped” by a publicist named Jennifer Campana, who may be the same Jennifer Campana described in a 2009 Los Angeles Times story about layoffs in California. (Disprove it!) And Elliott’s article also reminds us of Dave Weigel’s rebuke to Trig Truthers:

Trig Palin is Sarah Palin’s son and it’s irresponsible to suggest otherwise. . . .
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.

Let anyone go read Scharlott’s paper:

  • On Page 2, he says there was “insufficient evidence for the press to conclude that Palin was telling the truth about Trig.” So, according to Scharlott, anyone can accuse someone else of lying and the burden of proof is on the accused.
  • On Page 3, Scharlott uses the tendentious phrase “purported birth,” the kind of dirty trick that would never get past the copy desk at any reputable newspaper.
  • On Page 4, Scharlott cited the long-since-deleted Daily Kos poster “ArcXIX,” and then an Anchorage Daily News reporter who cited the “ArcXIX” post as the basis for treating the Trig-Truther story as a legitimate topic.
  • On Page 5, Scharlott writes that the John McCain presidential campaign “chose to reveal on September 1 that Bristol was pregnant, alleging that she was in her fifth month — and thus, the logic went, she could not be the mother of Trig, who was allegedly born on April 18.”

Now, amidst all this “allegedly alleging” stuff, you see how Scharlott engages in insinuation, seeking to play on the suspicions of readers predisposed to doubt any word a Republican says, especially when it involves a pre-demonized personality like Sarah Palin.

As for it being “alleged” that Bristol Palin was five months pregnant on Sept. 1, she gave birth on Dec. 29 — a fact not in dispute — almost exactly four months later. (Last time I checked, 5+4=9.) And if it is merely “alleged” that Trig was born on April 18, on what basis does Scharlott suppose otherwise?

Does Scharlott mean to insinuate (just taking a wild stab in the dark here) that Trig was actually born to Bristol before April 18, which would for the purposes of the Trig-Truther theory provide additional time for Bristol to get pregnant again and have a full-term baby (allegedly!) in late December?

OK, fine: Where is there any evidence that Trig Palin was born before April 18? There is none. And so all Scharlott’s “allegedly alleging” insinuation is irrelevent nonsense.

I’ve just skimmed through Scharloff’s paper and highlighted problems from the first five pages. Let anyone else go take a look at the whole 29-page paper and see for themselves: As Gertrude Stein said of Oakland, there’s no “there” there.

UPDATE IV: Tom Maguire at Just One Minute linked Sully, who continues to express outrage at “the strange – and, frankly, incredible – stories Sarah Palin has told about her fifth pregnancy.”

But let’s face it: Sully would find any story involving a vagina ”strange”and “ncredible.” Also strange and incredible: Nothing from Ace about this?

Damn. That boy’s slipping in his old age.

UPDATE V: Linked by Josh Painter at Texas for Palin — thanks!

UPDATE VI: The Lonely Conservative points out medical studies showing that women pregnant with Down Syndrome babies tend to gain less weight during pregnancy, which goes toward rebutting the whole “but-she-didn’t-look-pregnant” meme of Trig Trutherism.

Bookmark and Share
Category: Sarah Palin

Comments

← Older Comments
  • LibertarianGuy

    Honestly, that’s the most convincing argument I’ve seen yet.

  • Anonymous

    “Amazing”

  • Anonymous

    A short while ago you were a Libertarian to “the right” of Palin voters and now you’re in a snit about “the left”. Get some rest, if you over sleep and miss your bus mommy will have to drive you to school.

  • LibertarianGuy

    Well, I’d love to say this has been fun or enlightening, but it’s been more disappointing. I’m always interested in fun discourse and I’m always willing to hear the other side before coming to a conclusion but now I know.

    I don’t have any idea whether this is true or a conspiracy theory and I find it interesting (because I do believe that Palin is a pathological liar, and that’s not a political statement, that’s a personal statement). But while I admit I don’t know, there’s also not real evidence yet everyone here is 100% sure that I am not only wrong, but batshit crazy and that I should leave the country. That you are universally 100% sure that Sarah Palin is the mother or question why it’s anyone’s business shows a level of intellectual dishonesty.

    During the course of these comments, I was called a liar, troll, son of a bitch, bastard, stupid, sniveling dick turd, lying sack of sh*t (twice) and told that I need to be run out of town on rails, even though I’ve done nothing other than ask respectfully questions.

    On that note, I’ll leave you with the wikipedia entry for “name calling”. http://bit.ly/gGDmzu

    Best of luck, folks.

  • Patrick DeBurgh

    Yeah, you had a rough ride through here. In defense of a few of your rhetorical adversaries I would note that they have blogs of their own and some serious right wing cred to maintain. Palavering with doubting Thomas’s or deviating from commonly held wisdom just costs them page views. The rest just enjoy venting. Libertarianism may not be everyone’s cup of tea but intellectual honesty should be.
    J Stacy McCain is very earnest in his promotion of conservatism. He practically carried the Washington Times. It would be nice to see him back in print some day, Guess I’m just old-fashioned.

  • Patrick Chester

    “What I find interesting is that nothing stated here actually refutes Dr. Scharlott’s points”

    “Nothing” save for, oh, noting little problems with human pregnancies and such.

    Keep handwaving and bleating “nothink, der is NOTHINK!!!!” and maybe people wont’ notice.

  • Patrick Chester

    “I read a convincing reason why it was unlikely that Bristol could have had Irish Twins.”

    In other words, you were lying about “nothing” in refutation and are desperately handwaving it away as “not proof, der is NOTHINK, feeeeeeed meeeeeeeee” and so on.

    Thank you.

    You also forgot the extreme unlikeliness of a human female in her teens giving birth to a baby with Downs vs the likeliness of a human female in her 40s doing so, but I’m sure you’ll try to handwave that away as well.

    You haven’t provided burden of proof requiring examination of medical records. You’re just a diseased weasel trying to spread slanders and lies about a person you dislike. No matter what is given to refute it you’ll keep seizing upon whatever lie you can come up and demand the Palin’s disprove those as well. That’s how you weasels play the game, isn’t it?

    Go on, whinge about namecalling or definition of character. (Or lack thereof.)

  • Anonymous

    (“because I do believe that Palin is a pathological liar”..) – thank you libertarianguy, for putting your ‘respectful’ comments in context. It has helped me understand exactly where you are coming from.

  • Pingback: But Stillbirths Are a Problem | POWIP

  • http://thepagantemple.blogspot.com/ ThePaganTemple

    “You sound like you are talking about terrorists.”

    No, we’re just talking about the terrorists blood brothers-otherwise known as Democrats.

  • Paul Zummo

    Notice how the troll brings up the “respectful discourse” meme. The guy is actually lending credence to a conspiracy theory that no one with any functioning brain cells could possibly believe. Obviously Socialist Guy is either single and/or childless, or really has no comprehension of basic human biology.

    The fact of the matter is, horny teenager or no, no woman who just passed a 7 lb baby through her woman parts is going to engage in sexual activity a month let alone two weeks after giving birth. So we’re talking at least one month, if not more, before conception can occur again, and that’s assuming she’s not breast feeding. Bristol’s “second child” would actually have to have been closer to 7 months in age when born, and not only would said child not be anywhere close to 7 lbs, but in all likelihood would be facing a few weeks in the Nic U.

  • Paul Zummo

    Notice how the troll brings up the “respectful discourse” meme. The guy is actually lending credence to a conspiracy theory that no one with any functioning brain cells could possibly believe. Obviously Socialist Guy is either single and/or childless, or really has no comprehension of basic human biology.

    The fact of the matter is, horny teenager or no, no woman who just passed a 7 lb baby through her woman parts is going to engage in sexual activity a month let alone two weeks after giving birth. So we’re talking at least one month, if not more, before conception can occur again, and that’s assuming she’s not breast feeding. Bristol’s “second child” would actually have to have been closer to 7 months in age when born, and not only would said child not be anywhere close to 7 lbs, but in all likelihood would be facing a few weeks in the Nic U.

  • Paul Zummo

    Awwww, are you sad?

    I would say that the names that you have been called are tame compared to what you actually merit. But don’t worry, you and Patrick can go cuddle in the corner and give each other warmth.

  • johnl

    Except that covering up a kid’s pregnancy by faking your own would be pretty awesome.

  • SDN

    No, asshole, having Obama’s birth certificate is necessary to meet the requirements of the Constitution. Trig Trutherism is just you and the rest of the Copperheads being assholes.

  • SDN

    Ain’t seen a fact from you yet, fool.

  • http://ace.mu.nu/archives/279942.php Andrew Sullivan

    You are just not being objective. Of course Mr. Scharlott is correct. Of course, he is also working off all the brave investigative journalism done by me.

    I am all over this story.

  • Anonymous

    Taking crazy blog speculation and simply swallowing and regurgitating it on your own blog without fact-checking it for yourself is not brave investigative journalism. And neither is simply re-swallowing and re-regurgitating the regurgitation, which is what this new paper is. And sitting back, sneering at Governor Palin and her family and supporters and saying “prove me wrong” certainly is not. No. They’re your allegations. You do your own damned fact-checking and prove them right or wrong for yourself or you shut your gob.

  • SVT

    You say you have nothing to hide – but you don’t have a copy of your birth certificate? Well, since you can’t produce evidence to the contrary, it’s a legitimate question whether you are a bastardly son of a bitch.

    As for “staying classy” – you are in no position to criticize anyone.

  • http://ace.mu.nu/archives/279942.php Andrew Sullivan

    You are right Rich Fader, I do swallow.

  • Pingback: Just A Word of Advice « The Cranky Conservative

  • Malclave

    Umm, for some reason I doubt that Sullivan, even if he were to comment here, would put Ace of Spades as his URL.

    But, just to play along… when can we expect Salon to demand DNA testing for Malia and Sasha to prove Barack is their father?

  • RTFM

    mr. palin has probably taken pity on the doc. one look suggests he has taken enormous daily beatings from the ugly stick and received his advanced degrees from the cracker jack box.

  • Anonymous

    Logic is our friend.

  • Pingback: Stacy McCain: Lefty Trig troofer prof’s ‘paper’ is all insinuation « Sarah Palin Information Blog

  • SVT

    You really are a silly little bitch.

  • SVT

    David – Crapweasel admits above that he doesn’t have a copy of his birth certificate. By his lights any speculation you wish to engage in about his “heritage” is a “legitimate question” until he produces a copy. Enjoy!

  • LG’s GamGam

    Aww, bubbee. Those meanies just pick on you because you’re my bwave wittle soldier and extra specially intellectually honest.

  • Pingback: FMJRA 2.0: Lend The Devil A Hand : The Other McCain

  • Pingback: ‘Snowbilly Grifter’? And Incest Jokes? : The Other McCain

← Older Comments
Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE