Posts
"(Except the Trig Truthers, they're just subhuman scum.)"
The above parenthetical comes from a Conservatives4Palin post that thanked AKM and Mudflats for sticking up for anonymous opinion-giving. No, I won't link there, but the post is named "Should Anonymous Free Speech Apply to….THEM??" -- mimicking exactly the title of AKM's post.
The essence of this Mudflats blog post was to support C4P who was chastised by Jay Ramras after C4P criticized their fellow conservative for being absent from the AK legislature in session, after Jay Ramras criticized Sarah Palin from being absent from proceedings, especially during the critical final weeks.
Ramras asked the bloggers behind C4P to "step out of the shadows." Having recently been 'outed' by an aging and sad ex-newspaper columnist named Mike Doogan, AKM of Mudflats naturally stood up for blogging under pseudonyms.
The essence of the C4P article re-affirmed the right to speak your mind whether or not you identify who you are. And the author went further to say that it's alright that C4P and Mudflats have opposing political views, and that "we recognize that no matter how bitterly we disagree with our opponents, no matter what their political persuasion, they are still Americans, and human beings deserving of respect." Except those who have serious doubts that Sarah Palin gave birth to the Down syndrome child named Trig.
This gave me real pause. Why is this particular subject so touchy for the die-hard Sarasites? Is it because they have nothing from which to build a counter-argument?
We disagree on pro-choice vs. anti-abortion. We disagree on exploring ANWR. We disagree that the people and former leadership of Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. We disagree on thoughtlessly slaughtering wolves and their cubs to artificially pump up the moose population for out-of-state trophy hunters. We disagree on allowing Pebble Mine to dump its waste in a pristine river. We disagree whether Alaskan natives' subsistence lifestyle should be cherished and supported. We disagree on a lot of things, but it is only when we disagree whether Sarah lied about her pregnancy that we are are no longer human beings.
Sensitive much? Protesting too much? Why is this issue so worthy of attacking the messenger and not the message when other disagreements are "still deserving of respect?"
It is because, in my opinion, this issue strikes too close to home, and the C4P folks know that when it can be shown that Sarah pulled the wool over the eyes of her "right-to-life" base about Trig, the jig's up. Sarasites are willing to suffer through her all-too-obvious inability to govern wisely and well. They are willing to make excuses for her routine ethical failures. They are even willing to pull the blinders over their eyes when, for instance, Sarah nominates an overtly chauvinistic, US government-hating racist for Attorney General. But if it is proved that she faked the whole "I'm your candidate because my faith helped me to bear a special-needs child, which proves I believe in the culture of life!" — the façade that is Sarah Palin will truly crumble.
Let me know if you are an "I love Sarah" person and if you would still love her if you found out she lied, big time, about her right-to-life credentials. I'd really like to hear how you'd justify that, if you can. In the meantime, you might want to peek out from behind your blinders. Palin's Deceptions is a great place to start if you are willing to spend the time. And if any of the folks there have it totally wrong, well, they welcome reasonable and courteous discussion.
