On November 19th, Andrew Sullivan (The Atlantic) offered yet another of his posts where he asserts Sarah Palin is not the mother of her youngest son Trig ("Deconstructing Sarah, Ctd"). Since Sarah Palin was announced as John McCain's running mate at the end of August (2008), Andrew Sullivan's been tossing out charges that Palin faked her pregnancy. In the early days, he was far from alone and you could find the same insanity all over the internet. Some have walked away from it, some have, like Sullivan, continued it.
Here's reality for all the idiots out there: Short of DNA testing, the only thing that's ever likely "known" is who someone's mother is or was.
Despite the fact that Sarah Palin and her husband Todd Palin maintain that Trig Palin is their child and despite the fact that no one else has come forward to claim to be the mother or father, Andrew Sullivan's been allowed to make these charges repeatedly for over 14 months now with no one at the left 'institutions' uttering a peep.
You may, as we're sure they would, insist that it's not a topic they'd 'cover.' However, they've covered a similar topic repeatedly: Barack's birth.
Let's start with The Nation. Leslie Savan's "The Birthers of a Nation" (July 24, 2009) who insisted that questions about someone's true parentage revealed racism: "Of course, the Lady in Red couldn't scream the N-word in a townhall meeting (which, by the way, was called to discuss healthcare reform), so she screamed about his birth certificate." July 23rd, they posted "Jon Stewart Slams the 'Birther' Movement," July 29th they posted "Will the Birthers Ever Back Down?" (text and video of Howard Dean and Chris Hayes ridiculing those who have questions about Barack's birth), August 12th found the 'poet' Calvin Trillin serving up "Where Were the Birthers Born?" and, of course, for all around nutty, no one could top Joann Wypijewski and her "Red Scare, Black Scare" (November 18th).
The Progressive had to roll around in the topic as well. The always daffy Ruth Conniff included the following in "Ugliness on the Right" (September 30th): "From the 'birthers' who question the President's U.S. citizenship to the town-hall-meeting shouters stirred up about creeping 'socialism' in health care reform, we now arrive at the wingnut suggestion on Newsmax of a possible military coup." Forgetting that White gay males are often targeted and bashed, Kate Clinton flashed her ignorance in "White Whine" (September 12th) which also managed to include, "Once again their worldview is being rocked - demographically, racially, economically, politically -- and the Birthers, Deathers and Everything in Betweeners are not behaving well at all." And Ed Morales (one of the magazine's multiple male hires following the death of Molly Ivins) had to share in "Lou Dobbs must go" (September 22, 2009): "Dobbs also peddled the discredited claims of the so-called birthers, who contend that President Obama is not a U.S. citizen, even though his own network aired a segment proving the president’s citizenship last year."
In These Times appeared the least concerned with only Susan J. Douglas 'tackling' the 'issue' while flaunting her own homophobia in "Women Reach a Breaking Point" (October 13th), "How tired are you of seeing a tiny minority of wingnut Americans -- 'birthers,' 'tea***gers,' Obama-haters--get so much coverage in the news?" [Not being homophobes, we've edited out the term Douglas used.]
Cleary, anyone questioning Barack's birth was a prime target for The Nation, In These Times and The Progressive.
It becomes very clear that 'birth questions' are more than fine with those outlets . . . as long as they're aimed at Republicans.
It's situational ethics that allow all three outlets to look the other way while pretending to be outraged that anyone's paternity would be questioned.
Andrew Sullivan is slime and, for the bulk of big boy's career, he was right-wing slime. The left wrongly let him in the gate this decade and, despite the fact that he's crapped all over the garden, they've allowed him to stay.
And they've remained silent about his allegations about Trig while insisting that any allegations about Barack's birth must be racism. It's cute little con-game they play but all they are is con-crafters (don't call 'em "artists").
If they truly were offended that anyone's birth was questioned, they would have long ago loudly called out Andrew Sullivan. They would have demanded that The Atlantic cut him loose. They would have insisted that anyone like Sullivan didn't belong in the mainstream.
Instead, by their silence, they've offered him tacit approval and a blanket of cover.