You may recall that there was some scurrilous, loose talk about the possibility that Trig Palin is actually Bristol's first child, and that Sarah faked her own pregnancy to hide that of her teenage daughter. This bubbling rumor was--we were told at the time--the reason that the Palins disclosed Bristol's current pregnancy (although, just to be scandalously clear, the two alleged Bristol pregnancies do not seem to be mutually exclusive). And, indeed, it seems to have worked. For awhile.
Today, though, I see Andrew Sullivan is picking up on some ongoing reporting on the subject, if only to make a point about Sarah Palin's hypocrisy.
Why would a hospital exhaustively record all births on their premises and leave out easily the most famous baby ever born there? There were only 24 births at Mat-Su in April of this year: it's not like they could have mislaid one. So why is there no formal record of Trig's birth? This is not an "unspeakable" question. It's a simple factual one. Presumably there's an explanation. Perhaps the Palins decided that it would be an invasion of Trig's privacy to have the birth actually recorded in the hospital where he was born. But at least they should be able to tell us that. Or perhaps the hospital decided for some reason not to record that one birth. I have no idea. I do know that if Sarah Palin were running against Sarah Palin, she would demand evidence, as she did with something just as accessible with respect to John Stein's marriage license.
I don't know if there's any there there, but I appreciate the continued focus on Palin's troubling approach to both governing and campaigning. She truly is cut out for the modern Republican party, you betcha!