There are two things you can say for sure about Michael Barone’s work. First, he is arguably the finest observer of the political process we have in this country. Second, he is about as far from being a bomb-thrower as you can possibly get while still getting a regular gig as a commentator on television. So when he comes out with something like this, in public, even for humorous effect, you know he’s seen something.
A roomful of academics erupted in angry boos Tuesday morning after political analyst Michael Barone said journalists trashed Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republicans’ vice presidential nominee, because “she did not abort her Down syndrome baby.”
Barone said in an e-mail that he “was attempting to be humorous and … went over the line.”
…
“The liberal media attacked Sarah Palin because she did not abort her Down syndrome baby,” Barone said, according to accounts by attendees. “They wanted her to kill that child. … I’m talking about my media colleagues with whom I’ve worked for 35 years.”
The collective heads of knuckle on the left side of the blogosphere have reacted with their ususal cool, reality-based rationality. Steve Benen especially is particularly outraged and says that Barone should retire without wondering what might make such a level-headed and generally soft-spoken guy say such a thing.
If Steve, et. al., has looked at some of the things that have been written about Sarah Palin, and her son in particular, they’d see that Barone’s comment carried a good-sized kernel of truth with it.
Very popular left-wing gossip blogger Wonkette suggested that Trig himself wishes he has been aborted. A Canadian doctor worried out loud that Sarah Palin might inspire other mothers not to abort their down’s syndrome children. Columnist Nicholas Provenzo said right out that she should have aborted him to save family the trouble and financial cost of raising a Down’s Syndrome child. Slate’s Cintra Wilson pointed directly to Trig as proof positive that his Mom’s “most beloved child is the antiabortion platform”. The Chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party said that Palin’s chief qualification “seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion”.
James Taranto noted that the long-deranged Andrew Sullivan, whose entire schtick this election has been to wonder out loud about Trig’s parentage, wrote so much about Trig’s handicap that “[i]f this were all you had heard about him, you’d think his name was Down Syndrome Child Palin”.
The entire thrust of this New York Times article is about how Trig is “tangible proof of Ms. Palin’s anti-abortion convictions”.
Indeed, Mona Charen, Michael Gerson, and Pat Buchanan (and how’s that for ideological diversity on the right?) were making almost exactly the same obsevations as Barone did about the media reporting on Sarah and Trig Palin two months ago without much of a whimper from the media or the left.
Given that there is a notable pro-abortion bias in how the MSM reports on the entire subject of abortion, is what Barone said all that outlandish? Especially as what he said was an attempt at humor?
No, I really don’t think so. I think it hit far too close to home and that’s what has folks upset about it today.
Tags: Abortion, James Taranto, Michael Barone, New York Times, Pat Buchanan, Republicans, Sarah Palin
