Obama has only made ONE mistake? ONE? Solyndra? CLASS? Porkulus? Porkulus II: Electric Boogaloo? Asking for everyone’s approval to invade Libya EXCEPT Congress? Presidential Assassination Lists that include American Citizens?
I’m no fan of St. Sarah of Wasilla, but Joe McGinniss’ book isn’t going to provide any insight into Sarah Palin. If you hate her you’ll love the book, if you love her you’ll hate it. Does the book have any merit? Up until this point I honestly didn’t know. Then I saw that Mr. McGinniss called Andrew Sullivan “about the only responsible journalist to express any interest” in Trig Birtherism. (emphasis mine)
So stupid that even when she’s right, it’s only because she’s “lucky,” and we should presume the the way in which she was correct probably wasn’t “what Mrs. Palin was referring to.” Fortunately, we have the Massachusetts Democratic Party, which doesn’t let the fact that Sarahpalin was “correct” stop them from making fun of her. Because that’s what you do to stupid people, right? You make fun of them for being stupid whether they’re “right” or wrong, because in reality, they’re always wrong.
Added: See also, Althouse, who notes that excreable Dr. S. must constantly remind himself of what a farce Sarahpalin is. If one were to venture onto his page (I don’t recommend it – I just did it (3:04) to see if he had altered any of his notions of how stupid Sarahpalin is in response to the subtle fact that she’s right; needless to say, he’s using the fact that rightwingers are pointing out that Sarahpalin was right as evidence that rightwingers are a bunch of hyperdefensive types who ignore reality), one would need no other reminders that he is a hack, and no longer a terribly entertaining one at that.
Now a quick search of Andrew’s archives, or ours linking to his nuttier utterances on St. Sarah of Wasilla, will quickly show what a howler this particular quote is. It may be semantically true that Andrew never wrote the phrase “Trig is not biologically Palin’s child” but his relentless pursuit of this matter beyond all reason and his continual need to “ask questions” about this poor child’s parentage casts him in the mold of a Beckian conspiracy nutter. The exact kind of intellectually unserious propagandist that Andrew rails against on an almost daily basis.
So which is it Andrew? Are you the Atlantic’s answer to Glenn Beck? Or is it merely that you have lost the struggle to see what is in front of your own nose?
Its good to see Andrew finally holding Barry’s feetto thefire over his laughable budget. Even more shocking – he actually praised a Republican for a change (his knee jerk stance since 2008 has been Obama Good/Republicans Bad.) It’s about time. Its not like Obama’s fiscal fraudulencehasn’tbeen ondisplaybefore.
I’m forced to ask Andrew: What the hell did you expect when you threw your support behind such an obvious liberal politician?
By now many of you are familiar with the Grand Patriarch of the Church of the Holy Obama and his penchant for rooting out every detail of Sarah Palin’s life (and vagina). He is particularily famous for his Odd Lies of Sarah Palin series (link), in which he chronicles every misspoken statement, misremembered fact and political exaggeration as part of some nefarious grand lie of The Blessed Madonna of Wasilla (remember I’m not exactly a Palin fan).
So color me shocked, SHOCKED (he says in his best Claude Rains impersonation) when I come across this post, which seems to indicated that The Holy O may have *gasp* lied and exaggerated his back story for political benefit. Dear god I almost fainted. From this Sullivan draws this insightful conclusion:
Not that big a deal – but interesting.
I’m not one to be crass (oh who the hell am I kidding I love being crass) but at this point Obama should get himself tested.
Andrew has so many opinions to ventilate, and so little time to think about them . . .
As a former subscriber to The Atlantic (I miss Michael Kelly), I think it besmirches the magazine to be affiliated with such a clown, no matter how much traffic he brings in. I generally avoid theatlantic.com because of the fact that they financially support Sullivan’s asshattery. If the other Atlantic bloggers now realize how much he damages their reputation and are turning on him, that might be a reason to start reading them. Or it might just be a clever marketing shtick by The Atlantic: “First we’ll employ a jackass who makes lots of people angry, then we’ll employ people who attack the jackass, thereby getting all the readers!”
To be on the safe side, I’ll continue to not regularly visit the website until they stop employing such a man.
That’s a pretty strong piece, and a pretty strong charge, from someone I generally respect. I don’t have a fully formed opinion on the matter, so I won’t say whether I agree with it or not.
What I will say is that I stopped reading Sullivan when he took up residence in Sarahpalin’s nether regions. I’ve visited his site maybe a half dozen times since then, and each time I saw some unflattering comment about Jews. I didn’t say anything, here or elsewhere, because I had no way of knowing whether what I read was at all representative of his current incarnation. That is, I gave Sullivan an undeserved benefit of the doubt.
Whether Wieseltier is right about Sullivan’s Jewish problem I won’t say, but Wieseltier is certainly correct that Sullivan has an unhealthy tendency to see conspiracies and evil motives wherever he looks. Once people start conspiracy rambling, it’s usually the case that at least some anti-Semitism will creep in. If it’s crept into Sullivan, I wouldn’t be surprised. At least, not as surprised as I am to see TNR run such a lenthy and personal takedown of one of its former editors.
First, Andrew Sullivan veered hard to the left. Then he swooned for Obama as no man has ever swooned for another. Then he spent a year or so exploring the finer details of Sarah Palin’s reproductive organs. Now this?
It’s not so much idiotic, or crazy, or left or right, as it is fantastic. He wants to invade and occupy the only liberal democracy between Greece and India. And why? As best I can decipher, it’s because he’d like a different topic of conversation. Fantastic.
Of course he couches it in ridiculous Sullivan Double-Speak about the right not really being conservative or conservatism leaving him. Its all complete bunk of course, Andrew by virtue of his changing opinions, his use of emotion to drive his “thinking” and his complete adulation for a man that stands for everything he is allegedly against, left the right long ago.
This is not to say that I don’t agree with some of the things Sullivan lists here – I too am disgusted with much of Republican governance over the last decade. The important distinction is that my reaction is to become more conservative (actually in my case libertarian), not support a radically leftist politician.
BTW Andrew I’m going to quote your little list of why you can no longer support conservatism but I’ll include some hyperlinks to help you out: