Brad Scharlott gives Sarah Palin the chance to put the Babygate question to rest for good. Did she take it?

This was from the conversation that Brad and Laura had on her blog yesterday:

LN: People probably wonder why bloggers don’t go to Palin directly and pose their questions. And perhaps snorting, “Oh right, like she’d answer me” isn’t a good enough answer. Instead, I asked Rebecca Mansour many times on Twitter to respond to my blog posts. And I invited her, many times, to do an interview with me. It was only fair. And she was predictably mute. You, on the other hand, went directly to Sarah. Tell us about that, Brad. 

BS: I’ve revised my original Babygate paper as a magazine article. A couple of weeks ago I sent that to Sarah Palin’s Wasilla address, and she received it on August 15, according to the USPS tracking service. In a cover letter I asked her to respond to the article, and I also asked six specific questions that stem from it, such as whether she was truly pregnant in 2008 and whether she wore a fake pregnancy belly when Andrea Gusty interviewed her. I told her I planned to publish the article within a month, and I promised her I would include her response with it. Of course, she has not responded. So what can we concluded from that? 

LN: One, she’s too big for us. And I can honestly understand that (although word has it that she is afraid of me.) There are a lot of demands on her time. Why? I have no idea. But there are. Two, why add fuel to the fire? To respond to you and/or me, or any blogger, lends credence to what we are saying. She’s hoping we’ll go away. Three, like I said in an earlier comment. We use subjects and verbs. And we use them in agreement. I think Anon on Gryphen's blog is right: that scares her. 

BS: Well, if she did NOT perpetrate a hoax, there would be an extremely important reason to respond to my letter and article. In that cover letter, I wrote: “As you may recall from your journalism studies in college, you are considered a ‘public figure/official’ for First Amendment purposes, in light of NY Times v. Sullivan. By providing you this opportunity to respond to my paper, I trust I am demonstrating beyond any doubt that my article bears no ‘actual malice’ towards you.” Since I was forewarning her that I plan to publish the article, by NOT responding she essentially forfeits any conceivable opportunity to sue for defamation. That is not the same as admitting she is guilty, of course, but could you imagine an innocent high-level politician ignoring an article that made such sensational allegations of wrongdoing? After all, I’m not just any crackpot. Palin knows my paper in April made news around the world.

You know one of the reasons that has been offered up as to WHY Palin does not simply produce the birth certificate and do away with all of this speculation, is because IT WORKS FOR HER!

The argument is that because people keep bringing up this issue that it makes THEM seem like lunatics, and by refusing to shut them down Palin appears above it all and is essentially taking the high road. (In fact Palin often brings up the "conspiracy" about Trig's birth in her speeches. It ALWAYS gets a laugh and a smattering of applause from the audience.)

Now this theory was all but rammed down my throat by a good friend who wanted desperately for me to drop the subject. (I won't out them here, but I am sure most of you can figure it out.) But of course I never did, because I never bought into that theory. Nor did I believe that keeping the investigation into babygate alive was actually helping her.

Oh sure it gave her a laugh line or two for a speech, but does anybody really believe it helped to sustain her popularity?

But for the sake of argument, let's just assume that it did. Let's assume that much of Sarah Palin's ability to garner sympathy and appear relevant stemmed from the fact that her supporters felt she was persecuted by these "crazy" liberals who had the gall to suggest that she would fake the birth of her own child.

However the Sarah Palin of today is significantly less popular than the Sarah Palin of two years ago. We are currently witnessed the crumbling of her political aspirations, the desertion of many of her past supporters, and the dimming of her relevancy to the media.

Yet the investigation, and number or people discussing babygate, is now larger than ever.

Even an author as well known as Joe McGinnis has publicly addressed it, and there is a book coming out whose sole purpose is to introduce the topic to an even wider audience.  So even if the argument could have been made two years ago that the subject of babygate was helping Sarah Palin in some way, that argument certainly could NOT be made today.

But you know what might help Sarah Palin at this point?  Producing proof that Trig is her biological son.

Imagine how much attention it would garner if Palin were to suddenly come out and show the world that the crazies were wrong all along, and that she was just playing them for a bunch of fools. Think of how she could play up how her family was victimized by these horrible people who went after her precious children so aggressively all to prove something that her evidence now demonstrated to be false.

Hell her smiling face would be all OVER the news, her potential political career would be revitalized, and the donations would come pouring in.

Not only that but imagine her joy at embarrassing Joe McGinniss, Professor Scharlott, Laura Novak, and Andrew Sullivan. Not to mention squashing the reputation of a certain pain-in-the-ass Alaskan blogger.

Yep, if ever there were a time to finally shut all of us up for good, this would be it.

So what do you say Sarah? Are you ready to finally put us all in our place?