Saturday, June 19, 2010

The Odd Lies of Andrew Sullivan, Ctd.

Alert the media!  Mercede Johnston (Levi Johnston's sister) has a new blog! Levi, you will recall, is the baby-daddy of Tripp, the infant son of Bristol Palin. Andrew Sullivan, naturally, has gone over every post with a fine-tooth comb, looking for confirmation of his interesting theories of Trig's parentage.

So far, no success. But he did find this! Independent confirmation that Sarah Palin called her son a retard!

Except, there is no "independent confirmation" of anything except that Mercede says that Levi says that Sarah Palin said that. In other words, she said, he said, she said. I sent an email to Andrew:

I realize that you take every opportunity to criticize Sarah Palin, but what you have said in this post is just not true:

"So we now have independent confirmation that Palin, ... referred to her own Down Syndrome son - literally - as "retarded" in front of him at home."

I agree that the kerfuffle over Rahm Emanuel's use of the word was stupid and unnecessary, although I very much dislike the use of "retard", "retarded", or "short bus" as an insult, since these are descriptive of a disabling medical condition, like "crip" or "spaz".

However, "independent confirmation" would imply that Mercede herself heard Palin call Trig "retarded" (which in itself is not inappropriate, my 24-year-old son is also retarded and I describe him that way to strangers so that they will have an idea how they can interact and converse with him when they meet him for the first time).

What Mercede said in her blog post was, AS YOU DIRECTLY QUOTED, "No I have not personally heard her use that term, but I do remember my brother twice coming home and telling me about it." So what you have is "independent confirmation" that Levi said that Sarah used the term, and nothing more. Whether you believe Levi is a reliable source or not is irrelevant. The assertion by Mercede that her brother said it does not rise to the level of "independent confirmation" by Mercede (whose reliability as a source, as someone also hostile to Palin, could also be questioned).

I have given you somewhat of a pass on Palin coverage, as some of your fears seem justified, but I really think you should update this post to remove the phrase "independent confirmation." It is false and unfair as originally posted.
I am eagerly awaiting Andrew's retraction, as we all know that he is a scrupulously fair "journalist" in matters related to Sarah Palin.