Lets see, 1 and 8 are incompatible, as are 2 and 9, also 1 and 6.
Joe Loy
Waw haw haw / Oh so it’s Crapulous, is it! But did Andrew Sullivan really mean to imply that the authors of these fine Republican principles ;} were Drunk when they composed their bibulous farrago of grandiloquent debauchery? / Hm. Maybe So. / Hee hee hee 🙂
Joe Mama
Speaking of the hilarious Sullivan, see him getting pwned by Charles Krauthammer here. Powerline hits the nail on the head:
Shakespeare’s Falstaff claimed not only to be witty, but also the cause of wit in others. By the same token, Sullivan is not only obtuse, but also the cause of obtuseness in others.
Jazz
JM –
Krauthammer “pwned” Sullivan? Did you read the comments section after Krauthammer’s column? Granted that the WaPo is a liberal-ish rag, and pwning is in the eye of the beholder, but yours is surely the minority opinion here.
FWIW, I thought Sullivan was a buffoon going after Krauthammer in the manner he did, which made the schadenfreude of his getting the date wrong delightful, but any enjoyment of said schadenfreude was diminshed by Krauthammer being a predictably pompous ass in return.
Jazz
The more interesting thing about that comment section is that the pro-Krauthammer comments take a predictable anti-Sullivan stance: “Andrew Sullivan doesn’t know what he’s talking about”. Not unlike the Powerline comment that Sullivan is inherently obtuse.
I think its basically true that Andrew Sullivan doesn’t know what he’s talking about. I also think Charles Krauthammer doesn’t know what he’s talking about. And you, you don’t know what you’re talking about. And me, as well, no idea what I’m talking about. Because the topic in question is something like “should we bomb Iran?” and not “How’s the temperature today?”
We live in a dismal world where everyone discusses a topic like “Should we bomb Iran?” with the same breezy, dismissive confidence as they would a topic like “What’s the weather like?”
Sullivan is one of the few voices in the noise-o-sphere who treats difficult matters like they’re, you know, difficult, without final certainty about how to proceed – which leads to chortles from the ideologically pure wingnuts (from all sides of the political spectrum) that Sullivan is confused.
You know what they say about pointing one finger at the other guy….
Joe Mama
You’re full of it, Jazz. Of course Sullivan got pwned. He attacked Krauhammer as someone “much more invested in obstructing and thereby neutering Obama and the Democrats than in solving any actual problems in front of us,” and who plays “a game…with impunity.” The basis for Sullivan’s attack was his ignorance of an easily checked fact. The “pompous ass” reaction by Krauthammer was completely appropriate and thoroughly deserved. I don’t know what comments you’re referring to or how they’re relevant, but it’s pretty clear that Sullivan indeed doesn’t know what he’s talking about and isn’t to be taken seriously.
Jazz
Joe Mama – to your question about the comments, I am referring of course to the reader comments that follow Krauthammer’s column.
I of course agree that Sullivan’s attack on Krauthammer was buffoonish (see for example post #4), but as you can probably relate from participating in internet forums, sometimes you let yourself go a bit. That was a fail on Sullivan’s part. But its quite a stretch to infer from it that he is a failure. Which is how Krauthammer played it. And pretty much why the majority of commenters on the WaPo site saw Krauthammer’s riposte as a fail as well.
Jazz
This is probably overkill…but Sullivan took a huge swing at Krauthammer, as Sullivan is sometimes apt to do, and missed badly, and not only missed but also got the details wrong, which is very very funny.
Krauthammer’s response saw none of the humor in that setup, in fact it was suffused with righteous outrage that Sullivan would even be motivated to take a swing at him.
You can share Krauthammer’s outrage, or not. But Sullivan v. Krauthammer will always be with us, so long as they both shall live, which makes Krauthammer’s righteousness (particularly given Sullivan’s gracious apology) rather tedious indeed.
Brendan Loy
Andrew Sullivan is one of the most intelligent and interesting writers on the Web, and he has far more integrity than the vast majority of pundits. He freely admits when he realizes he was wrong about something, and frequently revisits & wrestles with his own previous opinions in a genuine way that few are willing to do. He is also a very passionate person, and sometimes goes overboard on a particular topic. And, like everyone in the universe except Joe Mama, he’s sometimes wrong about things. But again: he is never afraid to admit it when that happens, even when it’s painful to do so (as his abject apology to the hated Krauthammer shows). He’s also never afraid to see the nuance and complexity in the issues of the day, nor to piss off people of whatever partisan or ideological stripe when he feels it’s necessary. Right or wrong, overly passionate or even-keeled, his opinions are almost always well articulated, well reasoned, and thought-provoking. Those who dismiss him as a mere hack do so at the risk of exposing their own blind hackery. If you think Andrew Sullivan is a joke, the joke’s on you.
Joe Mama
Don’t be stupid, Brendan. I’m perfectly capable of admitting when I’m wrong. As for Sullivan, he used to write with integrity, but has gone from merely “passionate” to outright hysterical in the last few years, as evidenced by his recent “lacuna” over Palin’s book. In fact, loses his shit over pretty much anything having to do with Sarah Palin, so much so that I’m beginning to question the sexual orientation of a homosexual who is that obsessed with a woman’s vagina. His opinions on “Christianists,” torture, and pretty much anything pertaining to GWB post-2005 are likewise pretty friggin’ far from well reasoned and thought-provoking, although they may be well articulated, Sullivan blogging as much as he does. When it comes to admitting when he’s wrong, David Frum captures my thoughts exactly.
Oh, and Andrew Sullivan is a joke.
Jazz
You know, I actually agree with Brendan on this discussion, and would even go further: I think Sullivan is brilliant. I think his blog is brilliant. I also frequently hate him and his blog, and have written him several seething emails about something or other. But the blog is phenomenal.
Yes, Joe Mama, dude makes mistakes. So do I. I probably fuck up something like 5 times a day, but unlike Sullivan, I am not publishing 25 or so editorials to an audience in the millions on usually 25 unrelated topics. Can anyone else claim such prolific output? Even if another blogger publishes the same number of words, do they do so on such a variety of topics? I doubt it.
You call him a joke or a lunatic because of his feelings on topics, but you don’t elaborate, and none of you ever do. I have a suspicion why: Sullivan thinks someone like Palin’s sister really gave birth to the handicapped baby, while you are sure it was Palin, even though the sister explanation fits the facts, while the Palin explanation requires gross disregard for a special needs infant’s…needs…though you buy her story anyway, and still like her, so when you say Andrew Sullivan is a joke, it is possible that by “Andrew Sullivan” you mean “Joe Mama”.
Though I think the Sullivan v. Palin dispute is reflective of a deeper sickness in the Republican party. Here are some other things that are true about Sullivan:
1) Gay guy virulently opposed to hate crimes laws.
2) Openly discusses how gays have to be sensitive to the “ick factor” of sodomy in making their cases to heterosexuals.
3) Does not make excuses for the obvious burden of his job’s demands in causing him to misread a date and fuck up so royally in re Krauthammer.
4) Apologizes like a gentleman and takes full responsibility for his errors.
Jesus, if Palin were in Sullivan’s shoes, each of those four things would go in exactly the opposite direction! Her blog would have daily posts about how mean everyone is to the gays, and how not nice it is for people to be offended by the ick factor of anal sex, and when she screwed up she’d be pouring forth with excuses, and never take responsibility for anything…
Its all so sad because the GOP used to be the party of William F. Buckley. Now its just a shameful shell of whiny excusemongers.
I’d take Sullivan over that crap any day of the week, (even though he pisses me off – A LOT).
Joe Mama
LOL…you’re evidently immune to irony, Jazz. You decry all Republicans as “excusemongers” while offering up your own lame excuse in defense of Sullivan’s boners: hey, dude writes a lot, so he’s bound to make mistakes! That excuse would be valid if we’re just talking about misstating the details of a piece of legislation, or a particular policy proposal, etc. But that’s NOT what we’re talking about. Sullivan didn’t just “misread a date”…his error completely undermines his entire attack on Krauthammer! Which, of course, Sullivan sought to use as a proxy to attack the Right in general. Sullivan says dumb shit like this all the time, which is why he’s unreadable. If you’re going to use your blog to attack people individually or as a group, as Sullivan routinely does, then it’s incumbent upon you to know what the hell you’re talking about. Being a prolific blogger is NO friggin’ excuse. Plenty of other bloggers write as much as Sullivan and have a much less casual relationship with facts (see, e.g., Mickey Kaus).
You call him a joke or a lunatic because of his feelings on topics, but you don’t elaborate, and none of you ever do…
Sullivan’s feelings are beside the point. He’s a joke because of his hysterical polemics. As I’ve elaborated previously on this blog as a former regular reader of Sullivan, he used to be a vocal critic of moral relativism, particularly the moral equivalence between Islam and the West, but then he rapidly degenerated to ranting incessantly about the GOP as “Christianists!!!” OMG OMG OMG who are as bad or worse than the Taliban. Sullivan preaches privacy and sexual freedom (at least when it comes to his gay rights agenda), but then he went on an absurd crusade into Palin’s hospital records and her daughter’s school attendance records to validate his totally deranged conspiracy theories about Palin’s baby. He used to think military records were off limits (e.g., with Kerry in 2004), but then he wet his pants about perceived inconsistencies in McCain’s cross-in-the-sand POW story, which Sullivan criticized as a just a bone that McCain threw to those oh-so-dreaded “Christianists” during the 2008 campaign. I don’t know that he “revisits & wrestles with his own previous opinions in a genuine way” so much as he has an utter lack of fear of self-contradiction.
And I’m not even going to get into Sullivan’s silly determination to rewrite the catechism of the Catholic Church to fit his agenda.
…I have a suspicion why: Sullivan thinks someone like Palin’s sister really gave birth to the handicapped baby, while you are sure it was Palin, even though the sister explanation fits the facts, while the Palin explanation requires gross disregard for a special needs infant’s…needs…though you buy her story anyway, and still like her, so when you say Andrew Sullivan is a joke, it is possible that by “Andrew Sullivan” you mean “Joe Mama”. Though I think the Sullivan v. Palin dispute is reflective of a deeper sickness in the Republican party.
Jesus Harry Randolph Christ….I think this “Sullivan v. Palin dispute” is reflective of the deeper sickness in your head. I don’t know anyone — doctors or no — besides you and Sullivan who can diagnose a woman’s pregnancy forensically from a handful of news articles and pictures, or offer informed medical opinions on changes to the female body during mid- and late-term pregnancy. When I say Andrew Sullivan is a joke, by “Andrew Sullivan” I also mean “Jazz.”
Jazz
JM –
Hopefully you will not feel the following misrepresents you…roughly speaking, here’s what I think possibly happened regarding Trig’s birth:
***Having thoroughly starbursted William Kristol in the summer of 2007, proving her potential to be a national GOP candidate, Gov. Palin considered what to do about her weakness as a female considering the misogyny of so many evangelists. At the same time, her sister or some other person close to her discovered she was pregnant with a Down Syndrome child. Recognizing that the evangelicals would embrace her with a special needs child, Palin arranged with the real mother that, if possible, Gov. Palin would claim the child as her own. If not possible, Gov. Palin would characterize her actions as being in the interest of support for the ‘real’ mother, including perhaps adopting the baby later.
Then, there’s what you believe…
***The official story.
Here’s a list of curious details that would be the actions of a rational individual, assuming my suspicion is correct:
1) Tells no one on her staff that she’s pregnant.
2) Tells no one at the Governor’s conference that she’s leaving because she’s in labor
3) Tells no one at the airline of the risk to which she would be exposing them by travelling across the content while in labor
4) Informs no one in the mean old mainstream media that she’s pregnant, which, you know, might be an interesting story given a middle-aged governor.
4) (Never actually) boarded a plane for a 12 hour trip while in labor with a special needs infant having a 50% probability of needing emergency care at birth.
Then, here’s some implications of the story you believe that are consistent with a rational actor….oh, I’m sorry, there actually aren’t any.
Joe, you can call me sick in the head til you’re blue in the face, and if you knew me in real life you might in fact believe that much more than in internet world.
But the interesting thing about the above, is not only that you believe a story, which, if true, paints a picture of a much less rational human being than the one I believe, but you additionally believe that the same human being is…is…presidential timber.
I may indeed be sick in the head, Joe…but you got way bigger things to worry about than that.
Jazz
Dialing back the rhetoric a bit, I don’t have a problem with the alleged Palin plot if its true. The story I proposed at the top of the last post makes a lot of sense to me, and if its true it would not, in my opinion, in and of itself disqualify someone for political leadership. That said, if one is working such a plan, and it gets fucked up by being caught in Dallas when everything goes down (as opposed to the much more workable Anchorage), well, that’s a damn shame, and I feel bad for Palin about that. She got stuck trying to twist a fairly untenable story.
But that being the case, what kind of fucking sheeple are the rest of us to swallow that turd without question? What happened to skepticism? Even though it is crappy for Sullivan to ask for her medical records, given HIPAA, it also used to be part of America that when someone threw a turd against the wall, someone else would say “WTF is up with that turd?” Nowadays no one dares say anything, which I attribute to the polarization of America, and the ease with which any public figure can hide behind whichever sympathetic shield they wish.
I hate that. So does Andrew Sullivan. Does he piss you off, Joe Mama? He pisses me off too. As mentioned, I have written that bastard several angry emails for stuff he’s said that pissed me off. But in a world where Sarah Palin – such a shame – has her hand forced to float a giant turd biscuit regarding the alleged birth of her child – I’d much rather have an Andrew Sullivan type than all the hand-wringing “when will those mean people stop asking questions?”
This guy is America, these days. Liberal, conservative, everyone.
Don’t like Andrew Sullivan’s over-the-top persistance with torture (which went way too far) and evangelicals (which is unfairly stereotypical), etc? Give old Chris Crocker a call. He’ll help you out.
Joe Mama
Never get tired of seeing that Chris Crocker clip 🙂
Jazz
Heh. Chris Crocker and we can all be friends again :). Further to that, one thing about Sullivan that drives me crazy about the Trig conspiracy (and, er, I have emailed hostilely) is that he makes it seem like Palin was dead-set on doing the old switcheroo. That meme blatantly doesn’t fit the facts, as she would surely have said *SOMETHING* in Dallas if she were fully committed. That version also doesn’t fit the many ways such a plot could get f’ed up, of which Palin would surely have been aware. Treating the switcheroo as a “real option” as opposed to a committed plan, fits the observed data, and it would be much more logical and rational under the strange circumstances.
IOW, though he may not intend it, Sullivan comes across as a harpy against Palin, and if it weren’t so obviously politically incorrect – and dated – his handling of the whole thing is a bit, er, …ghey.
But that said, if the reason the Fourth Estate exists is to ask public figures difficult questions about nutty stories, then Sullivan is one of the best we got. Which sometimes isn’t saying much. But it is what it is.
The GOP’s Ten Commandments: a “crapulous mishmash of rhetorical degeneracy”
Lets see, 1 and 8 are incompatible, as are 2 and 9, also 1 and 6.
Waw haw haw / Oh so it’s Crapulous, is it! But did Andrew Sullivan really mean to imply that the authors of these fine Republican principles ;} were Drunk when they composed their bibulous farrago of grandiloquent debauchery? / Hm. Maybe So. / Hee hee hee 🙂
Speaking of the hilarious Sullivan, see him getting pwned by Charles Krauthammer here. Powerline hits the nail on the head:
JM –
Krauthammer “pwned” Sullivan? Did you read the comments section after Krauthammer’s column? Granted that the WaPo is a liberal-ish rag, and pwning is in the eye of the beholder, but yours is surely the minority opinion here.
FWIW, I thought Sullivan was a buffoon going after Krauthammer in the manner he did, which made the schadenfreude of his getting the date wrong delightful, but any enjoyment of said schadenfreude was diminshed by Krauthammer being a predictably pompous ass in return.
The more interesting thing about that comment section is that the pro-Krauthammer comments take a predictable anti-Sullivan stance: “Andrew Sullivan doesn’t know what he’s talking about”. Not unlike the Powerline comment that Sullivan is inherently obtuse.
I think its basically true that Andrew Sullivan doesn’t know what he’s talking about. I also think Charles Krauthammer doesn’t know what he’s talking about. And you, you don’t know what you’re talking about. And me, as well, no idea what I’m talking about. Because the topic in question is something like “should we bomb Iran?” and not “How’s the temperature today?”
We live in a dismal world where everyone discusses a topic like “Should we bomb Iran?” with the same breezy, dismissive confidence as they would a topic like “What’s the weather like?”
Sullivan is one of the few voices in the noise-o-sphere who treats difficult matters like they’re, you know, difficult, without final certainty about how to proceed – which leads to chortles from the ideologically pure wingnuts (from all sides of the political spectrum) that Sullivan is confused.
You know what they say about pointing one finger at the other guy….
You’re full of it, Jazz. Of course Sullivan got pwned. He attacked Krauhammer as someone “much more invested in obstructing and thereby neutering Obama and the Democrats than in solving any actual problems in front of us,” and who plays “a game…with impunity.” The basis for Sullivan’s attack was his ignorance of an easily checked fact. The “pompous ass” reaction by Krauthammer was completely appropriate and thoroughly deserved. I don’t know what comments you’re referring to or how they’re relevant, but it’s pretty clear that Sullivan indeed doesn’t know what he’s talking about and isn’t to be taken seriously.
Joe Mama – to your question about the comments, I am referring of course to the reader comments that follow Krauthammer’s column.
I of course agree that Sullivan’s attack on Krauthammer was buffoonish (see for example post #4), but as you can probably relate from participating in internet forums, sometimes you let yourself go a bit. That was a fail on Sullivan’s part. But its quite a stretch to infer from it that he is a failure. Which is how Krauthammer played it. And pretty much why the majority of commenters on the WaPo site saw Krauthammer’s riposte as a fail as well.
This is probably overkill…but Sullivan took a huge swing at Krauthammer, as Sullivan is sometimes apt to do, and missed badly, and not only missed but also got the details wrong, which is very very funny.
Krauthammer’s response saw none of the humor in that setup, in fact it was suffused with righteous outrage that Sullivan would even be motivated to take a swing at him.
You can share Krauthammer’s outrage, or not. But Sullivan v. Krauthammer will always be with us, so long as they both shall live, which makes Krauthammer’s righteousness (particularly given Sullivan’s gracious apology) rather tedious indeed.
Andrew Sullivan is one of the most intelligent and interesting writers on the Web, and he has far more integrity than the vast majority of pundits. He freely admits when he realizes he was wrong about something, and frequently revisits & wrestles with his own previous opinions in a genuine way that few are willing to do. He is also a very passionate person, and sometimes goes overboard on a particular topic. And, like everyone in the universe except Joe Mama, he’s sometimes wrong about things. But again: he is never afraid to admit it when that happens, even when it’s painful to do so (as his abject apology to the hated Krauthammer shows). He’s also never afraid to see the nuance and complexity in the issues of the day, nor to piss off people of whatever partisan or ideological stripe when he feels it’s necessary. Right or wrong, overly passionate or even-keeled, his opinions are almost always well articulated, well reasoned, and thought-provoking. Those who dismiss him as a mere hack do so at the risk of exposing their own blind hackery. If you think Andrew Sullivan is a joke, the joke’s on you.
Don’t be stupid, Brendan. I’m perfectly capable of admitting when I’m wrong. As for Sullivan, he used to write with integrity, but has gone from merely “passionate” to outright hysterical in the last few years, as evidenced by his recent “lacuna” over Palin’s book. In fact, loses his shit over pretty much anything having to do with Sarah Palin, so much so that I’m beginning to question the sexual orientation of a homosexual who is that obsessed with a woman’s vagina. His opinions on “Christianists,” torture, and pretty much anything pertaining to GWB post-2005 are likewise pretty friggin’ far from well reasoned and thought-provoking, although they may be well articulated, Sullivan blogging as much as he does. When it comes to admitting when he’s wrong, David Frum captures my thoughts exactly.
Oh, and Andrew Sullivan is a joke.
You know, I actually agree with Brendan on this discussion, and would even go further: I think Sullivan is brilliant. I think his blog is brilliant. I also frequently hate him and his blog, and have written him several seething emails about something or other. But the blog is phenomenal.
Yes, Joe Mama, dude makes mistakes. So do I. I probably fuck up something like 5 times a day, but unlike Sullivan, I am not publishing 25 or so editorials to an audience in the millions on usually 25 unrelated topics. Can anyone else claim such prolific output? Even if another blogger publishes the same number of words, do they do so on such a variety of topics? I doubt it.
You call him a joke or a lunatic because of his feelings on topics, but you don’t elaborate, and none of you ever do. I have a suspicion why: Sullivan thinks someone like Palin’s sister really gave birth to the handicapped baby, while you are sure it was Palin, even though the sister explanation fits the facts, while the Palin explanation requires gross disregard for a special needs infant’s…needs…though you buy her story anyway, and still like her, so when you say Andrew Sullivan is a joke, it is possible that by “Andrew Sullivan” you mean “Joe Mama”.
Though I think the Sullivan v. Palin dispute is reflective of a deeper sickness in the Republican party. Here are some other things that are true about Sullivan:
1) Gay guy virulently opposed to hate crimes laws.
2) Openly discusses how gays have to be sensitive to the “ick factor” of sodomy in making their cases to heterosexuals.
3) Does not make excuses for the obvious burden of his job’s demands in causing him to misread a date and fuck up so royally in re Krauthammer.
4) Apologizes like a gentleman and takes full responsibility for his errors.
Jesus, if Palin were in Sullivan’s shoes, each of those four things would go in exactly the opposite direction! Her blog would have daily posts about how mean everyone is to the gays, and how not nice it is for people to be offended by the ick factor of anal sex, and when she screwed up she’d be pouring forth with excuses, and never take responsibility for anything…
Its all so sad because the GOP used to be the party of William F. Buckley. Now its just a shameful shell of whiny excusemongers.
I’d take Sullivan over that crap any day of the week, (even though he pisses me off – A LOT).
LOL…you’re evidently immune to irony, Jazz. You decry all Republicans as “excusemongers” while offering up your own lame excuse in defense of Sullivan’s boners: hey, dude writes a lot, so he’s bound to make mistakes! That excuse would be valid if we’re just talking about misstating the details of a piece of legislation, or a particular policy proposal, etc. But that’s NOT what we’re talking about. Sullivan didn’t just “misread a date”…his error completely undermines his entire attack on Krauthammer! Which, of course, Sullivan sought to use as a proxy to attack the Right in general. Sullivan says dumb shit like this all the time, which is why he’s unreadable. If you’re going to use your blog to attack people individually or as a group, as Sullivan routinely does, then it’s incumbent upon you to know what the hell you’re talking about. Being a prolific blogger is NO friggin’ excuse. Plenty of other bloggers write as much as Sullivan and have a much less casual relationship with facts (see, e.g., Mickey Kaus).
You call him a joke or a lunatic because of his feelings on topics, but you don’t elaborate, and none of you ever do…
Sullivan’s feelings are beside the point. He’s a joke because of his hysterical polemics. As I’ve elaborated previously on this blog as a former regular reader of Sullivan, he used to be a vocal critic of moral relativism, particularly the moral equivalence between Islam and the West, but then he rapidly degenerated to ranting incessantly about the GOP as “Christianists!!!” OMG OMG OMG who are as bad or worse than the Taliban. Sullivan preaches privacy and sexual freedom (at least when it comes to his gay rights agenda), but then he went on an absurd crusade into Palin’s hospital records and her daughter’s school attendance records to validate his totally deranged conspiracy theories about Palin’s baby. He used to think military records were off limits (e.g., with Kerry in 2004), but then he wet his pants about perceived inconsistencies in McCain’s cross-in-the-sand POW story, which Sullivan criticized as a just a bone that McCain threw to those oh-so-dreaded “Christianists” during the 2008 campaign. I don’t know that he “revisits & wrestles with his own previous opinions in a genuine way” so much as he has an utter lack of fear of self-contradiction.
And I’m not even going to get into Sullivan’s silly determination to rewrite the catechism of the Catholic Church to fit his agenda.
…I have a suspicion why: Sullivan thinks someone like Palin’s sister really gave birth to the handicapped baby, while you are sure it was Palin, even though the sister explanation fits the facts, while the Palin explanation requires gross disregard for a special needs infant’s…needs…though you buy her story anyway, and still like her, so when you say Andrew Sullivan is a joke, it is possible that by “Andrew Sullivan” you mean “Joe Mama”. Though I think the Sullivan v. Palin dispute is reflective of a deeper sickness in the Republican party.
Jesus Harry Randolph Christ….I think this “Sullivan v. Palin dispute” is reflective of the deeper sickness in your head. I don’t know anyone — doctors or no — besides you and Sullivan who can diagnose a woman’s pregnancy forensically from a handful of news articles and pictures, or offer informed medical opinions on changes to the female body during mid- and late-term pregnancy. When I say Andrew Sullivan is a joke, by “Andrew Sullivan” I also mean “Jazz.”
JM –
Hopefully you will not feel the following misrepresents you…roughly speaking, here’s what I think possibly happened regarding Trig’s birth:
***Having thoroughly starbursted William Kristol in the summer of 2007, proving her potential to be a national GOP candidate, Gov. Palin considered what to do about her weakness as a female considering the misogyny of so many evangelists. At the same time, her sister or some other person close to her discovered she was pregnant with a Down Syndrome child. Recognizing that the evangelicals would embrace her with a special needs child, Palin arranged with the real mother that, if possible, Gov. Palin would claim the child as her own. If not possible, Gov. Palin would characterize her actions as being in the interest of support for the ‘real’ mother, including perhaps adopting the baby later.
Then, there’s what you believe…
***The official story.
Here’s a list of curious details that would be the actions of a rational individual, assuming my suspicion is correct:
1) Tells no one on her staff that she’s pregnant.
2) Tells no one at the Governor’s conference that she’s leaving because she’s in labor
3) Tells no one at the airline of the risk to which she would be exposing them by travelling across the content while in labor
4) Informs no one in the mean old mainstream media that she’s pregnant, which, you know, might be an interesting story given a middle-aged governor.
4) (Never actually) boarded a plane for a 12 hour trip while in labor with a special needs infant having a 50% probability of needing emergency care at birth.
Then, here’s some implications of the story you believe that are consistent with a rational actor….oh, I’m sorry, there actually aren’t any.
Joe, you can call me sick in the head til you’re blue in the face, and if you knew me in real life you might in fact believe that much more than in internet world.
But the interesting thing about the above, is not only that you believe a story, which, if true, paints a picture of a much less rational human being than the one I believe, but you additionally believe that the same human being is…is…presidential timber.
I may indeed be sick in the head, Joe…but you got way bigger things to worry about than that.
Dialing back the rhetoric a bit, I don’t have a problem with the alleged Palin plot if its true. The story I proposed at the top of the last post makes a lot of sense to me, and if its true it would not, in my opinion, in and of itself disqualify someone for political leadership. That said, if one is working such a plan, and it gets fucked up by being caught in Dallas when everything goes down (as opposed to the much more workable Anchorage), well, that’s a damn shame, and I feel bad for Palin about that. She got stuck trying to twist a fairly untenable story.
But that being the case, what kind of fucking sheeple are the rest of us to swallow that turd without question? What happened to skepticism? Even though it is crappy for Sullivan to ask for her medical records, given HIPAA, it also used to be part of America that when someone threw a turd against the wall, someone else would say “WTF is up with that turd?” Nowadays no one dares say anything, which I attribute to the polarization of America, and the ease with which any public figure can hide behind whichever sympathetic shield they wish.
I hate that. So does Andrew Sullivan. Does he piss you off, Joe Mama? He pisses me off too. As mentioned, I have written that bastard several angry emails for stuff he’s said that pissed me off. But in a world where Sarah Palin – such a shame – has her hand forced to float a giant turd biscuit regarding the alleged birth of her child – I’d much rather have an Andrew Sullivan type than all the hand-wringing “when will those mean people stop asking questions?”
This guy is America, these days. Liberal, conservative, everyone.
Don’t like Andrew Sullivan’s over-the-top persistance with torture (which went way too far) and evangelicals (which is unfairly stereotypical), etc? Give old Chris Crocker a call. He’ll help you out.
Never get tired of seeing that Chris Crocker clip 🙂
Heh. Chris Crocker and we can all be friends again :). Further to that, one thing about Sullivan that drives me crazy about the Trig conspiracy (and, er, I have emailed hostilely) is that he makes it seem like Palin was dead-set on doing the old switcheroo. That meme blatantly doesn’t fit the facts, as she would surely have said *SOMETHING* in Dallas if she were fully committed. That version also doesn’t fit the many ways such a plot could get f’ed up, of which Palin would surely have been aware. Treating the switcheroo as a “real option” as opposed to a committed plan, fits the observed data, and it would be much more logical and rational under the strange circumstances.
IOW, though he may not intend it, Sullivan comes across as a harpy against Palin, and if it weren’t so obviously politically incorrect – and dated – his handling of the whole thing is a bit, er, …ghey.
But that said, if the reason the Fourth Estate exists is to ask public figures difficult questions about nutty stories, then Sullivan is one of the best we got. Which sometimes isn’t saying much. But it is what it is.