HomeNixon FoundationNixon Center

Arithmetic, Not Trig

September 1, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Hackosphere, News media, Republican Party 

Rather than apologizing to Gov. Palin and her 17-year-old daughter for lending his prestigious blog to the claim that they had engaged in a comic pass-the-baby conspiracy right out of “Desperate Housewives,” Andrew Sullivan morphs back into the responsible journalist he’d been until yesterday, demanding that the McCain campaign validate his behavior by providing proof that Palin is really Trig’s mother:

[W]hat harm would it do to release the medical records showing that Sarah Palin delivered Trig on April 18 in Wasilla? This is not hard: there must be an obstetrician, medical records, and data that can easily refute this rumor. It is not out of the ordinary either: candidates routinely issue medical records. So let’s have them. And then we can move on.

First, it wasn’t a rumor. It was a potentially libelous story manufactured by a left-wing blog that Sullivan chose to publicize and amplify without checking the facts or urging his MSM contacts to do so. Second, let’s do the math together. Bristol is five months pregnant. That means her child was conceived about April 1. Does Sullivan really need to see records showing that she wasn’t giving birth on April 18?

Let’s have Sullivan’s apology. And then we can move on.



Comments

3 Responses to “Arithmetic, Not Trig”

  1. Maarja Krusten on September 1st, 2008 5:33 pm

    John, speaking of moving on, I regret to have to tell you that I am going to stop reading The New Nixon, at least temporarily. Perhaps I will come back after the election.

    There are several reasons for that. Several times over the past two days, I found myself writing comments, reading them over, then doing “select all, delete” and closing the browser instead of hitting the submit button. As I read over what I wrote, I found RN’s words ringing in my ears, as applied to me, “not our people.” I already got a message of exclusion when Frank Gannon, with whom I once actually went to lunch when I worked at NARA’s Nixon Project in the early 1980s, never acknowledged me. Or responded to anything I wrote under his essays over several months. David Emig, too, ignored my postings. Robert Nedelkoff was polite enough to acknowledge, once, a comment from me. And you’ve been very gracious and kind in chatting with me. I’ve enjoyed talking to you in the virtual world. But it is pretty clear to me that I am not one of TNN’s people.

    I’ve always marched to the beat of my own drummer. Because I am very self actualized, the lack of dialogue is not enough to chase me away. But the focus and the tone of the site has changed, especially in metamessages. For a while, as discussions moved away from Rick Perlstein’s Nixonland and James Rosen’s The Strong Man, I thought I might read the postings here even if I couldn’t find many on which I could comment. But the site has started to feel dangerous to me over the last few days. The fault is mine, I think. Perhaps the metamessages always were there and I just missed them. I now think I misunderstood what TNN is all about.

    Yesterday and today, as you discussed current events, I realized no one had mentioned the section in Peter Baker’s Sunday New York Times magazine story in which an associate of John McCain discussed how Sen. and Mrs. McCain felt during the Republican primaries in 2000 when the rumors of an illegitimate child surfaced. On a nonpartisan site geared towards history, it might have been okay for me to mention that. It would have fit in with some of your postings, in an historical sense.

    I actually composed a brief comment about Baker’s description of the use of rumors during the South Carolina primary, but it was one which I deleted before hitting submit. The rumors about McCain in 2000 came from Republican sources, not Democratic ones. Who knows, a reader might accuse me of violating Ronald Reagan’s mythical 11th commandment. I just had no confidence that there was room here to move the discussion from what is happening today to what historically has happened to candidates (or what they have done to opponents) in the past. So, I didn’t try.

    I’m an historian, a federal employee, and a nonpartisan, non-ideological person who truly is an Independent. (I left the Republican party around 1989.) These days, I put my faith in no one, based solely on the party to which they belong. If I were a partisan, which I am not, I actually have some leeway under existing federal statutes. The Hatch Act allows employees of the federal government to “express opinions about candidates and issues.” And even to “campaign for or against candidates in partisan elections; make campaign speeches for candidates in partisan elections; distribute campaign literature in partisan elections and even hold office in political clubs or parties.” But I truly am an Independent who is not affiliated with any political party. What the Hatch Act permits represents a minimum standard for me, anyway.

    Most of all, I am saying good bye because I feel that there is little oxygen for me to breathe here any more. There are few postings these days that discuss books or articles about RN. Nor do I see essays that take a nonpartisan and historical approach to issues such as campaign tactics, presentation of policy issues, etc.. Or what motivates voters. I looked this afternoon to see if anyone would mention the comment Barack Obama made about families and political campaigns. The last I looked, no one did. I started to mention it to you this afternoon but deleted the comment. More and more, this site has come to feel not only partisan, but partisan with a strong sense of orthodoxy. I can’t be associated with so clearly defined a site. Remaining even a reader places me too much at risk.

    As you know, because of my work with the Nixon tapes (where I was NARA’s expert on abuses of power) and my experiences as a former archivist, I understand very well how little value people who look at political issues in a nonpartisan fashion have in the political world. I have no desire to crush anyone – why would I, when I have a wide-ranging intellectual curiosity about all things related to Presidents, how people campaign, how they govern. But I know that there are people who might want to crush and silence someone such as I. That I am a “live and let live” person does not mean I will be treated that way by others. I understand the political world. I even accept that people such as I do not matter, even in the simplest terms just as human beings, to those who act from solely political motives. As RN once said of perceived opponents, “use any means.” That’s the way the game is played.

    Rather than place myself at risk, I’m going to stop reading the site, at least until the election is over. You might say, and let me assure you, I know you would mean it, “keep on reading, and your comments are welcome, too.” I respect you and even trust you, odd as that sounds coming from me. I have no concerns that you might harm me. But I increasingly worry now that the site has lost so much intellectual oxygen that others might peg me wrong for my lack of orthodoxy and come after me.

    Self censorship is not something I enjoy. Rather than do that to myself, or offend any of you, I’d rather say, “thanks for letting me hang out here briefly. I too knew RN, although differently than any of you. In the course of my employment at NARA, I listened to 2,000 hours of Richard Nixon’s White House conversations, some of which I believe never will or should be released to the public. It reflects well on you that you permitted someone as unorthodox as I to hang out here for a while. May you find in your forum and in the company of virtual friends the happiness that all human beings deserve, whatever their political viewpoint.”

    All my best,

    Maarja

  2. David Emig on September 1st, 2008 6:06 pm

    I am sorry that you feel that I didn’t acknowledged your posts. As a historian and Nixon biography, I really appreciated your insights into the Nixon archives. I would and will miss your voice.

    I also appreciate your message. Personally, I consider myself quite balanced politically. I suspect that those here, and in the Nixon forum know that. There are millions of political blogs, thousands of right wing political blogs. But only one Nixon blog. It is about “News and Commentary about the President, his Times, and his Legacy.” I hope that everyone keeps that in mind.

  3. John H. Taylor on September 1st, 2008 6:15 pm

    Dear Maarja: Thanks for your moving if discouraging post. Your comments have enlivened our site, and I hope that someday soon they will again. few specific responses:

    1) I was away from the computer for a while today; first thing I did when I got home was write about Sen. Obama’s classy comments. I also finished up the post below, which I began this morning. I’d be honored if you’d take a look.

    http://thenewnixon.org/2008/09/01/americas-information-crisis/

    2) I didn’t read the NYT story you mention but shall.

    3) I hear both you and David on the RN angle. It must be the Holy Spirit, because I’d also been thinking today that I’d been neglecting the Old Man a bit myself. I finally finished “Nixonland” about a month ago and have a whole bunch of things to say, but I’ve been distracted by the somewhat guilty pleasure of having a forum for commenting on current events.

    Again, thanks for your generous posts. Look in on us from time to time! And I do look forward to meeting you soon.

    With respectful regards,

    John

    P.S.: And thanks to you, too, David.

Got something to say?