It's because of John McCain, the Republican establishment and the mainstream media. What happened last fall was a warning sign to all of us about how corrupt and cynical the GOP, McCain and the MSM are. They colluded in such a way that this unstable, erratic, know-nothing beauty queen could actually have been president of the United States. What matters is that all those in on this scam be exposed and their way of conducting themselves be reformed until they stop risking the fate of the country and the world on their own vanities and cowardice.I think the McCain part is what sticks for me. I don't condemn him as hard as others, because I never really bought the myth. I think men often do great things. I think they often do petty things, too. Sometimes, the same man, does both.McCain knew full well that Palin was unqualified to be commander-in-chief at this period of time; and he knew there was no way she could ever learn enough to do the job. So his decision to pick her was pure cynicism and irresponsibility. The MSM knew full well that there were very serious questions about this unknown person's background, lies, mental stability, and secrecy - but they were so terrified of being called biased they refused to do the proper vetting.
« Echoes Of The Crack Age | Main | The Girls Step Up To This » Before I Let Go09 Jul 2009 10:00 am
Andrew explains why he can't quit Sarah:
Comments (68)Post a comment |
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I think, at this point, the petty far outweighs the great on the scales. Which is too bad.
It's interesting for me because as a liberal person it's always been hard for me to find a lot to like in John McCain politically. As a figure in the media and politics, McCain was noted for his humor and his temper which I thought both expressed a desire for honesty, and inability to hold up a facade for very long. It's really astounding that at his age he believed he could hold up the facade of fully supporting Palin as a candidate and her drama filled family, especially after September. If he were elected I think it would have just been a matter of time before McCain totally lost it with her. Obama and Biden may not always be on the same page but I can't imagine Obama jumping a table for Biden's throat, with McCain I can see it.
I think men often do great things. I think they often do petty things, too. Sometimes, the same man, does both.
Honestly, I think it's "usually" rather than "sometimes." But that's a pretty minor issue.
I agree, though, about the never having bought McCain's myth making it seem somehow less egregious or out-of-character. We saw this in his shift from calling Fallwell an agent of intolerance to kissing Fallwell's ring.
Maybe he should ask himself about the Bush Administration, which caused eight years of domestic and foreign policy damage, before launching into his 1039th fruitless call for medical records important to him and him alone.
For me, it's an equally big mystery why people visit and link to monomaniacal blogs untempered by reader feedback and which contain about 8% original content.
To be fair, Andrew has been and remains critical of the Bush administration.
"Untempered by reader feedback"? Really? I agree Andrew definitely has his blind spots, but I've been impressed with the way he posts many emails from his readers and is willing to back down when he's called out.
I meant comments, sorry. I'm not impressed with self-selection.
As for critical of the Bush Administration, has he repeatedly asked the question about how the ineffective, constitutionally weak governor who flubs basic foreign policy questions was decided upon as the savior of a major political party? Did he just have a better pedigree/name, advisers, or a media machine? Are the questions to this unknowable, as they would have hypothetically been asked in 1999? How about Dick Cheney selecting himself as VP?
Please don't hijack. If you don't like me linking to "monomaniacal blogs," you don't have to read or comment. No one is making you read. I self-select too.
In fairness, the bulk of norbizness' post is about how GWB was unqualified as a candidate in 2000 to a similar degree as Palin. So it's false to claim that choosing Palin as VP was some sort of historically anomalous choice that justifies Sullivan's mania.
I think Andrew needs to tone it down. I don't see the justification for questioning Palin's "mental stability" as such. I think she has some highly questionable habits and operating priorities, but I don't see any evidence of mental instability.
She makes enemies way too easily to be a truly effective politician, but that's why the rank-and-file GOP love her. She voices the feelings that they have. She will do great as a better-looking version of Rush Limbaugh. Not that Mr. Oxycontin is any great poster boy for mental stability, but still, insinuating that she's mentally ill isn't justified, and is based on a misunderstanding of her.
I`m going to disagree on questioning Palin's mental stability. If you read the "Vanity Fair" feature that came out recently, it claims that people who have known Palin before she ran for V.P, questioned if she did have a narcissistic personality disorder. She appears to be highly paranoid and motivated by revenge. Does it seem stable to trash the father of your grandchild and his family in the media? Palin also constantly makes up lies that can be easily found out, lies that sometimes have almost nothing to do with politics. Based on my own atheism, I also find her Pentacostal church's beliefs bordering on insane. If you consider Nixon mentally unstable then Palin is right up there with him.
I'm not sure that narcissism, paranoia, and motivation for revenge are evidence of a personality disorder or simply prerequisites for seeking higher office in America.
Is that a joke or are you really that cynical?
Both.
When McCain put out the ad condemning Obama as someone who advocated sex ed to kindegartners when the PTA approved legislation was designed to protect children against sexual predators, he was mud for me. And he will remain so as a result.
Of course, all one had to do is to note the astonishing chasm between his so called beliefs and his real world actions to note that despite all this Maverick hype, he was a typically hypocritical politican--whether that be on issues such as veterans' affairs or torture or the insinuation of church into state affairs. His campaign throughout, not simply on Palin's account, betrayed a desperate unprincipled man who would go to almost any length to accrue power.
By all accounts McCain is a personable, often funny man, and like others in the press, Sullivan, who has often been suckered by the personalities of conservative poiticians in the past, had previously been won over by that. Remember, Sullivan at first believed that McCain was the best of the Republican candidates.
Insofar as Palin is concerned, Sullivan has done the nation a great favor in continuously exposing her nonsense, even to the point of both appearing to be obsessed and, perhaps in certain circles, being discounted as a result. After being taken a bit by her persona, he quickly and accurately noted her incompetence. I for one am grateful that a conservative-centrist such as Sullivan has been the brightest flashlight into the vacant, unlit room that is Sarah Palin.
I really, really like Andrew's blog---but I was getting more than a little fed up with his Sarah Palin jihad. I really thought he'd gone nuts and didn't really get why he was going so hard on this woman.
But I understand now. This really isn't about her---it's about a sick GOP, a MSM that isn't doing it's job and the fact that both are rotten to the core. Sullivan's actions wouldn't be necessary if either one of those entities would just do their fucking jobs. The fact is that their malpractice could have cost us all dearly last November and this should never be forgotten.
Well, you know, Andrew is kind of obsessed with her, and he does seem to have issues with women who are in or want power. But the fact is that he was right on this one.
I've heard people say this about him, but I honestly think it's bull. I mean, the man worships Thatcher. I think his beef with Hillary was a little over the top, but in my opinion had nothing to do with her as a woman.
Am I wrong about this?
I`ve had a feeling that given how intense his hatred for both Palin and Hillary Clinton are he may have a problem with ambitious women, but he would probably tell you he has a problem with their ambitions not being matched by accomplishments and transparency. His specific interest in the circumstances surrounding Palin's last pregnancy and her daughter Bristol could be interpreted as a kind of disgust for female sexuality/vaginas but thats REALLY digging.
I think his Thatcher love is the exception that proves the rule. And a useful shield, as he explains why every other woman just happens to fall short.
I don't have time to chroncle the case against him here, but I would suggest that you try reading him while consciously keeping a feminist viewpoint in mind. It's not hard to see. Not in every post, but it pops through.
I'm a self-described liberal and have been reading his blog for a long time, and not without many disagreements. But I just don't buy this. Remember, Sullivan's disposition was initially favorable to Palin when McCain first announced his selection. She seemed libertarian-leaning, reform-minded, and quite possibly gay-friendly at first glance. Of course he changed his mind soon thereafter in the face of overwhelming evidence the woman was unfit to be dogcatcher, nevermind veep.
My point is that I hear a lot about his supposed hostility toward women in power, but never get any real evidence. I think people should avoid saying that unless they're willing to provide evidence to back up that charge. And it's a pretty serious charge.
It makes sense to me that Andrew is going through a process of changing his political alignments and so is taking the Rep. meltdown personally but for those of us for whom Bush was always a terrible flashback to the Reagan/Thatcher era the really scary part is the fact that even after two Bush terms and Sarah Palin McCain got what 46% of the popular vote? All of the polls saying that Americans aren't divided by cultural values are misleading because while everyone may say that they care about issues like poverty or healthcare the difference of means, how the goal is to be achieved, are serious issues that really divide us. As for the 'mainstream' press supposedly not letting us know enough about Palin anyone who would still vote for her after seeing her interviews and reading the available coverage wasn't going to be convinced by more data.
ps Dahlia Lithwick offers an insightful wrapup of the Palin effect:
http://www.slate.com/id/2222523/
I've been reading Andrew on here for a few years now and I will say his Palin obsession was at times over the top. But he is right in exposing the fact that someone so unqualified was selected to be a VP candidate and 1 heartbeat away from being President.
my point was, and is, that if that fact wasn't abundantly clear to you during the election than either you weren't paying attention or you were among the faithful, either way it is just wrong to blame the media for your lack of insight here.
You agrue that the media has no responsibility to explore obvious character/capability issues with political candidates? I wish that we lived in a society where everyone was as educated and able to see through the political waltz that takes place each season. But America in general likes to have its informations spoon fed to them in easy to understand sound bytes. A fraction of a fraction of the electorate actually does their own homework before pulling the lever to cast their vote. So unless we reverse decades of American political apathy the media is absolutely to blame for not pointing out the obvious(to some).
"You agrue that the media has no responsibility to explore obvious character/capability issues with political candidates"
no I didn't. if you have any comments that actually relate to what I did write we can try this again otherwise...
I'm saying of course he's right in his critique. But limiting it to one personality, and all the attendant minutiae, while being the "death by a thousand cuts" approach favored by machine-gun blogging, is not particularly instructive in the long run. Her selection was a symptom, not the disease. The primary symptom was the cadre of shitheads McCain surrounded himself with in 2008; people he wouldn't have pissed on if their hearts were on fire in 2000, as they were the ones spreading all those South Carolina slanders.
In short, I wish I had made my point better, like dmf.
I think the comment you made above raised the bigger problem--something went terribly wrong within the Republican party, which led to:
a. The selection of Bush as presidential candidate, with all the amazing nastiness of the campaign, and the many opportunities for everyone to see that Bush was, obviously and fundamentally, a second-rate thinker at best.
b. The continuing nastiness of the Republicans post-9/11, where they used the burst of patriotism after 9/11 as a weapon, dividing the country long-term for a short-term partisan gain. (This wasn't surprising, but it was sad.)
c. The weird level of party loyalty Bush and company commanded, even when his administration was throwing away a lot of Republican or conservative values and policies, even when his policies seemed obviously disastrous.
d. The pathologies of the Bush administration which were chronicled so well in that Harpers oral history article Ta-Nehisi quoted awhile back. Think of the wild claims of power from Cheney's office, the claims that he was spying on other departments, the disastrous attempt to glue 30 distinct agencies together into the DHS, the damage done to the Justice department by both administrative f--k-ups and the attorney general firing scandal, the damage done to the Defense department by Rumsfeld's threat to fire anyone else who pointed out the likely problems with occupying Iraq, the attempt to nominate nonentity Harriet Meiers as a supreme court justice based on no strong qualifications other than her long-time position as a Bush crony, the horrifying mishandling of the Katrina disaster on pretty much all levels, etc.
e. The process that led to John McCain (a plausible choice for president, in terms of his experience and such) to choose Sarah Palin as VP, despite both ongoing and soon-to-erupt scandals and her apparent complete lack of ability or qualifications or relevant experience for the job.
f. The post-election continuing meltdown of the Republican party.
(e) is interesting, but it seems to me that it's only one small part of the whole story, and maybe the least interesting one. And I'm not even talking about policies, which seem to me to have been stunningly bad under Bush and the Republicans.
Ugh. Self-nitpick: attorney general should be US attorney
One of the underlying problems that lead to many of the factors you mention above is the ongoing inability or unwillingness of the MSM to do its frikkin' job. The decline of the MSM in the 1990s and 2000s will make for many interesting historical studies someday. It's also telling that as the MSM declined in quality, blogs exploded as a source of news, analysis, and criticism.
Part of the story of the decline of the press will undoubtably cover the way the Bush White House attempted (successfully) to control and manipulate the media. This was always very troubling to me because it showed that, beyond the normal adversarial relationship between the WH and the press, there was a profound DISRESPECT for it as a democratic institution. This is one of the long term doubts I've had about the GOP that led me to quit it earlier this year.
I want to comment on all your points, but I'll do just c. The weird party loyalty you saw was religious fervor, both literal and figurative. I have no other way to explain it. I lost a few friendships for questioning Bush with people I had one thought of as intelligent. They were like zombies.
For some, it was deeply spiritual. The wife of one ex-friend was convinced that Bush was "The One", and she wasn't alone in voicing that claim. (How ironic that many of the same people are sarcastically referring to Obama as "The One" today.) The funny thing is that she wasn't overly religious in 1999, but she experienced an "awakening" sometime between then and 2003.
If you're not seeing the misogyny in Sullivan's constant harping on the whole trig-birth-was-faked rumors, or her plane flights while pregnant, etc. you're not looking at it head on. Sullivan has been disgusting. A good chunk of why he can't quit Sarah is misogyny.
I wouldn't go as far as disgusting, but this is definitely part of it. He couldn't let go of his constant harping on Hillary Clinton until Obama had embraced her into his fold. That said, the dude does love his Maggie Thatcher.
Amen.
I don't see the misogyny, myself. Every time Palin did an interview, I would find myself asking, "How can anyone think this person could be Vice-President?" It's easy to dismiss in hindsight, but there was a real possibility that she would have been. As Andrew pointed out, the attacks on Palin were really attacks on the whole Republican party. The Trig nonsense actually helped her, of course. On the other hand, I would think a lot more of her if Trig had been her grandson. The story of flying 1000 miles with a ruptured amniotic sac raises a lot more questions about her judgement, in my mind.
I think Andrew went too far with some of the Trig stuff, but I don't fault him for it. It's a side effect of him being obsessive about his work, which I see as a good thing on the whole. Until I see some real evidence, I'm just going to see accusations of misogyny as a smear.
I don't think Andy Sullivan hates women. I do think he tends to be a tad obsessive when he gets onto certain topics. I've been reading his writing for decades going all the way back to the New Republic in the 80's.
He is also obsessive on the Iranian "revolution" that may be happening.
He is certainly obsessive regarding gay marriage. Torture.......obsessive.
That's not necessarily bad in a writer if the obsession involves a serious issue.
Claiming that he hates women is a bit much. This whole hates the vagina thang some of you have alluded to is a bit much. Freud doesn't need to be dug up here.
I also loathe Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton is not one of my favorite people. Do I hate women? Do I fear the vagina?
I can't stand Bill Clinton or George W Bush. Do I hate penises? Or is that penisi? What is the plural for multiple dongs?
Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton are both deeply flawed people. Palin more so than Clinton. Criticism of them is not evidence of "women hatin".
I'm not totally supportive of President Obama. Do I hate black men? Do I fear his big black dong and being bent over? Hell, I'm channeling Rush Limbaugh now. I should move to some small Republican state and run for office then get caught with a hooker or in an airport bathroom. Perhaps I'll go for the twofer........hooker in an airport bathroom.
Oh well all this sexy Republican like talk has turned me on. I need a drink.
Penii. Or sausage fest, for the frat crowd.
Great comment, btw.
Josh--I think that's a claim you have to provide evidence for. I've seen no real evidence of Sullivan's misogyny, and I've been reading him every day for over a year.
I think the best counter to the argument that Andrew is a misogynist is his recent series highlighting the complex and moving stories of women who had late-term abortions--stories that the MSM would never touch, and reintroducing the human element of the decision these women and their partners chose to make. This bearing in mind that he takes every opportunity to discuss his 'pro-life' position. He has blindspots (I think, perhaps because of the way/where he grew up, he doesn't 'get' race in the Americas, particularly in terms of Latina/o issues) but I don't think his reporting on Palin's pregnancy is motivated by anything more than rage over the fact that Palin can never get her story straight, refuses to release pertinent records (not only medical, but administrative/governmental), and the MSM is too craven to call her on it.
"I think men often do great things. I think they often do petty things, too. Sometimes, the same man, does both."
I've always kind of wondered about the American obsession with finding great men who are also good men. As if a man who does things that are good will naturally be able to do the things that are great... the desire to have Martin Luther King Jr to be a decent man to his wife, to have a man like George W Bush that can become president by selling himself to be a 'decent family man'. I know that this topics been covered a bit already on this blog with those MLK posts from before, but it still makes me wonder.
I had a teacher explain to me once that the country changed after the Nixon scandal. That people who normally don't question government were truly shocked and betrayed to see the type of deceit in the White House - and it changed the relationship for a lot of white people and authority. I suspect that, as well as the 60s in general, is where this neediness to have these perfect men to be in charge - men who can't exist, and really, don't need to exist.
I think men often do great things. I think they often do petty things, too. Sometimes, the same man, does both.
Another way to look at this is that the things that make men great are also the things that make them stupid and petty. There's always a darker side to anything that makes a man great, and that darker side is inseparable from the greatness. You don't get one without the other.
The mania about Palin strikes me as odd too.
As an initial matter, I will freely acknowledge that she was not truly qualified to be president in that she had barely held elective office and had no foreign policy experience. And her malaprops are embarrassing.
That said, the selection of Palin is not some sort of massive anomaly in recent American history. Agnew and Quayle, for example, had barely any experience and were apparently no more intelligent than Palin. G.H.W. Bush himself could barely string two sentences together in an intelligible manner. Romney was taken seriously even though he was only a governor for four years. Perot couldn't even make that claim and he received plenty of electoral support. Even Obama decided he was ready to be president after only serving two years as a Senator (though he would, of course, serve two more years (mostly in absentia) before being inaugurated).
So when Sullivan describes the selection of Palin as some kind of singular, apocalyptic moment, he's being either willfully blind or dishonest.
The fact is, his hypermonitoring of every time she farts is most likely because he finds her fascinating (for whatever reason) and he's stung by her implicit mockery of his Trig Truthism.
You're right, mrein. I wish Andrew would just admit that he's hooked on Palin and stop pretending that he's on some mission from god to point out all the ways that she was a farce and all the ways that McCain was an asshole for selecting her.
I don't think Palin really even comes close to having the experience of any of the people you mentioned, no matter how dim some of them might have appeared in public. Dan Quayle had a law degree and was elected twice each to the House and Senate before being chosen. True, Agnew had only been governor two years when he was chosen to run as VP, but he also had a law degree and had won a bronze star in WWII. Romney graduated Cum Laude from Harvard Law School. W is the closest, but even he served two terms as governor of a much bigger (population wise) state than Palin did. I'm just not seeing how someone with a bachelor's degree in journalism and 1.5 years as governor is on the same level as the people you mention.
You give a law degree a lot more credit than I do, that's for sure.
I went to law school and I feel no more prepared to be president than I did beforehand.
Watching Schoolhouse Rock is better preparation.
That's not the point I was making- that Palin is a clear outlier in terms of education and experience, even when compared with supposedly not-so-qualified people. I never said that a law degree means anyone is qualified to be President, only that all the examples above had more educational and political experience than Sarah Palin.
The only meaningful difference between Agnew and Palin is the law degree. (I don't mean to denigrate a WWII bronze star, but they were sadly very common after that Great War.) As for the differences between Romney and Palin, it's a few years as governor and a law degree.
She may be unqualified, but she's no "clear outlier."
One way that a law degree might help qualify a person for political office is that one can assume they have an understanding of the structure of our government and our system of democracy. On the other hand, one can honestly wonder how much information Palin absorbed from basic high school civics.
Anyway, a law degree is a marker, not a requirement.
Nittering Nabobs of Negativism was a pretty smart turn of phrase no?
Yep. It shows that William Safire should have been VP.
Quayle had vastly more experience than Palin. 2 terms in the House, A term in the Senate, re-elected to that seat 2 years before he became Vice President.
Did the fact that he had all that experience really give you comfort that he could be president if a crisis occurred?
That's the point. The nearly uniform consensus, from the start, was and is that Quayle was an irresponsible choice for VP. As much, if not more, than Palin.
So the Palin choice is really not that historically anomalous. Republicans have a knack for picking crappy veeps.
Although it can be credibly argued that Biden, for all of his years of experience, has been a massive liability on the campaign trail and in office. Let's put it this way, when the consensus is that your veep should not be allowed to speak in public on weighty matters, it was not a responsible choice for veep.
I'm absolutely not a fan of Dan Quayle, but how was his choosing more irresponsible than that of Palin? At least George Bush didn't have one foot in the grave like McCain. I'd have to say that Bush was also running at a time that was arguably more peaceful and generally chill than right now- we definitely weren't in the middle of two wars during the campaign of 1988.
Please.
"At least George Bush didn't have one foot in the grave like McCain."
What's your basis for this? McCain keeps a schedule that would make a person in their 30s collapse. His mother is in her 90s. The guy is healthy as a horse. Plus, GHWB was 64 when he was elected president. Only a few years younger than McCain was last year. Plus, GHWB came down with Graves Disease during his presidency. Nice try.
"I'd have to say that Bush was also running at a time that was arguably more peaceful and generally chill than right now- we definitely weren't in the middle of two wars during the campaign of 1988."
Er, does the Cold War sound familiar? That was a bit more existential than our current two wars. For that matter, GHWB kept Quayle on the ticket in 1992 even though the country had just been through the Gulf War.
At the very least, the picks of Quayle and Palin are more than comparable. Sullivan's claim that the Palin pick is some sort of historical outlier is not based in truth.
With respect, you are, of course, completely entitled to state as much of your opinion as you like. Just please be clear that it is only your opinion and not settled fact.
“That's the point. The nearly uniform consensus, from the start, was and is that Quayle was an irresponsible choice for VP. As much, if not more, than Palin.”
I have never read or heard anyone argue that Quayle was a more irresponsible choice than Palin, ever, until you did. As far as I can tell, Quayle was criticized for his lack of legislative accomplishments, his relative youth and his verbal gaffs. Now it is just my opinion but in my opinion, Palin outdid Quayle in all three cases. (I won’t bother to look up Quayle’s age in 1988.) In particular, while Quayle and even Biden made/makes gaffs, neither of them are/were as hopelessly incoherent as Palin is.
In other words, Biden may have a lot of knowledge but he often says things in a very blunt manner that can be politically damaging. (In trying to reassure voters about gun control, he accidently threatens Obama with gun violence; ex. “he won’t try to take your guns, if he tries to take mine, he’ll have a problem”.) Quayle had problems similar to George W. Bush, possibly not as bad in terms of frequency but his victimized look whenever he got in trouble, (“You’re no Jack Kennedy”), made his mistakes seem worse than they really were.
One can usually understand what both men are trying to say when they speak, despite how garbled they might be when they say something. Watch her interview with Charlie Gibson or Katie Couric and tell me that you understand what Palin is trying to say even 25% of the time. It’s like what Charlie Gibson said, a “blizzard of words”. Just say enough buzzwords and platitudes and hope some part of it made sense enough to get you on to the next question. Tina Fey’s parody of Palin’s answer to Couric’s question on the economy was basically what Palin actually said, with the exception of the line about “extra-value meals at McDonald’s”.
But one must be fair to Sullivan. At least during the campaign, his great distress was not that Palin was unqualified as much as she was probably unqualified but completely unknown. Palin had run in only one major political race prior to her selection as VP by John McCain and only two years before. Dan Quayle had been in four major political races prior to his selection in 1988. He was well-known for at least 8 years prior, ever since he knocked off long-time Democratic Senator Birch Bayh in 1980. That’s why those political races were important, it wasn’t because they made Quayle so damned brilliant. They gave the media and the public, if they were interested, to go back at vet Bush’s VP choice.
The fear was, Election Day would be upon the nation and Palin would not be forced to have given a single real interview. Sullivan went so far as to start a running count showing how many days elapsed since Sarah Palin’s pick and her first in-depth interview. He compared her with other past VP selections, I think he started with 1960 and the modern television era. Sarah Palin broke the record; her gap was longer than any other VP nominee in history. For his part, I believe Quayle actually had only a one-day gap.
Yes, objectively speaking I’d say it is pretty safe to call into question George H. W. Bush’s judgment with his pick of Dan Quayle. But in my opinion, it does not come close to the disaster John McCain made with his choice of Sarah Palin.
In addition, your comparisons of Bush, Perot and Romney are not all that valid. Romney was running for President, the voters had the opportunity to make their choice where he was concerned. Perot was the same case. George H. W. Bush was as well, unless you want to criticize Reagan and bring 1980 into this. To Sullivan, that was an extenuating factor against the Palin pick; it worsened the fact that she was she already largely unknown; the first time the American people would have the chance to vote for her would be the general election, for all the marbles.
Again and again, what made Palin’s selection such a troubling anomaly to Sullivan was the lack of vetting. Vetting by the public, the press and the McCain campaign; through elections and investigations, with such little time spent on it or available for it. The sheer unqualified nature of Palin has become the dominant aspect of his Palin coverage since Election Day.
In all honesty, the Trig stuff seemed a bit over the line, at least the line I would have drawn if I was him. But his otherwise fine coverage, coverage he did almost alone in the world of the Beltway media, earns my respect.
Nuada-
I thank you for your long and well informed response to my comments.
As an initial matter, I see that my earlier statement comparing Quayle and Palin was a bit unclear. I meant that there was a consensus that Quayle was an irresponsible choice. I agree that there is no consensus on his equivalence with Palin, though you are correct that that is my opinion.
As for your dismissal of my comparisons of Palin with Quayle and others, that too is a matter of opinion, I suppose. (Except for the relevant youth of Palin and Quayle, which you neglected to look up. Quayle was 41 in 1988 and Palin was 44 last year.) I remember the Quayle time on the political stage very well, however, and I have a hard time believing that he was more coherent than anyone, before or since. I urge you to look at the following list of things he said: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/quayle.asp I can't think of anything Palin said that approaches these.
And I also notice that nobody has persuasively shown why Agnew was a more responsible choice than Palin.
I appreciate your "vetting" defense for Sullivan, but I think that's not much more than a fig leaf. In the post linked above by TNC, and in many other places, Sullivan has clearly stated that he was concerned about someone like Palin being a heartbeat away. Others on this comment thread have shared that view, which I understand.
My primary point is just that this dynamic, sadly, is not really so uncommon. Palin may differ slightly in degree, but she's well within the ballpark of recent history.
Andrew Sullivan is offering a false choice: you either obsess over everything that Palin has ever said or done, or you're ignoring McCain's epic mistake and letting Kristol et al off without giving them the lashing they deserve.
We already knew all we needed to know about Palin to conclude that she is unworthy of elected office. And now, she's essentially admitting that she's not that into it, either. She may want some kind of soapbox, but it's not going to be in government. At worst, she's going to get a show on Fox (like Huckabee did) and make a lot of money and be extremely annoying. Fine. At best, she's really getting out of the game and will stay out of the public eye because at the end of the day she wasn't up for it.
If there are indictments to be written or crimes to be prosecuted, by all means, let's stay on the case. But if not, let's ease up on the "she lied about building the gillnetter!" nitpicking.
How many nails does Andrew need to nail into the coffin?
whatever problems I have with Sullivan, on this, he has been a hero. one of the few speaking consistent truth-to-power about the Horror from Wasilla from the very beginning. His ' Strange Lies' series was a corner of sanity as the rest of the MSM went along with the FRAUD that this woman was qualified to be one step away from THE PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES.
Keep on it, Mr. Sullivan.
On this issue, you have done a national service.
I'm hardly a member of the Palin fan club myself, but I really wish we could stop using "beauty queen" as an epithet to dismiss women.
To be fair, Palin was a literal beauty queen, not just a metaphorical one. And Sullivan elsewhere made the observation that, in quitting the governorship, she referred to giving up her "title" rather than her office. I think its a valid epithet in this instance.
That reference (to the governorship as a title) was quite telling. It was as if she saw what happened to Carrie Prejean, and decided to quit before The Donald (or The Rupert, in this case) fired her for not doing her job. I mean, for speaking the truth.
After the last year, Palin supporters must have in her "a faith so childish as to verge on the imbecile." (The quote is appropriated from one of the comic novels of British writer E.F. Benson.)
As for "Crash" McCain, (how many planes was it?) yes, he survived those horrific years in a Vietnamese prison camp, but so did hundreds if not thousands of others. This is not to denigrate, in any way, this experience. But, what else is there on the plus side of McCain's ledger? What else is there on the plus side that could possibly balance his endangering this nation with his selection of Gov. Palin to be a 72 year old heartbeat away from the presidency?
I think that last paragraph starts to nail John McCain, but I don't think the issue is that people don't expect a man who has done good things to also not do petty things. But with McCain, if you buy into the importance of her personal story, which in large part I do in spite of myself, it's hard to reconcile that someone who has done something more "heroic" than you can ever imagine would do something more dangerous than you can ever imagine as a power grab.
While it's hard to reconcile, it seems that often these two sides are often part of the same coin.
I've been thinking about this in the context of the Civil War recently. I was listening to David Bright's podcast lectures, and his discussion of Lincoln choosing Andrew Johnson as V-P in 1864. Bright makes the point that for all the genius and moral leadership Lincoln provides, let's remember that Lincoln gave the U.S. its worst ever president, and that that ain't something you can let go too easily.
Now, McCain is most certainly not Lincoln, but this whole discussion of how the choice of Palin is catastrophic to McCain's legacy should make us think, no?
As a related aside, Johnson was just abysmal. I particularly like how he was so drunk on Inauguration that he had to be put into a side room away from the goings-on.
Blight's opinion notwithstanding, I'm not sure how Lincoln gave the U.S. Andrew Johnson. Nominees did not pick their running mates then like they do now. Johnson wasn't even in the same political party as Lincoln. They ran on a "National Union" ticket specifically for that reason. Which also underscores the obvious fact that there was a civil war going on. That is an extenuating circumstance not available to John McCain.
If McCain had picked Joe Lieberman in the interest of national unity, he would have come out looking a lot better. Lincolnesque even. The party preferred Palin, and McCain went along. To his discredit.
I think you all may be missing one important quality of Palin's that the 71% of republicans identify with: her Christianism. Her "values," her anti-government rants, her anti-abortion, forced motherhood for all, Christian-zionism, and yes, her racism; her "victimization by the Librul Media"--all have roots in her Christianist background and beliefs.
She and others of her ilk are true believers; she is their Joan of Arc, ready to throw herself up on the Cross for the hastening of her brethren to be Raptured. Palin has been assured by her excorcist Preacher that she "has been chosen" to lead the movement. Brrrrr.
We can laugh at the irony of it all, but I assure you, she and the Mike Huckabees and many others are engaged in, what to them, is Serious Business.
lol
you don't get it, TNC.
Sully can't let go.....because Dr. K, Jonah, Douthat and the rest of GOP elite are planning on bringing her back.
They pretty much told her to go home and read some books until this blows over.
Douthat continues the fake-out that the media has misrepresented Palin....so that she can be refurbished to be used on the base down the road.
Sully and I and the rest of the Medjai will stand with drawn blades at the Gates of Hamunaptra.
Like Anck su Namun, we shall never allow her allow her to return from the City of the Dead.
Imhotep/Douthat cannot resurrect her......our magicks are far stronger than his......
teh magicks of TRUTH!
;)