Monday, September 15, 2008

"Mr. Sullivan, did you order the Code Red?"

Pursuant to last week's discussion about Andrew Sullivan's shifting opinion on whether or not Sarah Palin is Trig Palin's mother (all being done under the aegis of The Atlantic), it seems that Sullivan, having issued a brief forced sounding post saying that Gov. Palin had, in fact, been pregnant with Trig, now seems to be trying to coyly contradict that pose as often as he deems practicable.

To wit, Sullivan first claimed that Palin's ABC interview provided grounds for the media (including, presumably, David Bradley's Atlantic) to investigate everything about her entire life. Here's Sullivan, "She has therefore pulled a Gary Hart in inviting the press to examine her life in full." More:

when you agree to run for vice-president of the United States, you surrender any zone of privacy. Al Gore's sometimes wayward son; Dick Cheney's daughter and now granddaughter; Dan Quayle's wife; George H. W. Bush's extensive clan: all these families have been an "open book" to the press. . . .

The Edwards story - showing stunning recklessness in a potential president - legitimized the reporting of the National Enquirer, and made their reporting in this news cycle legit. And the story - subsequently reported and endorsed in the New York Times and every mainstream media source - was less relevant to public life than Palin's. Because by the time the story broke, Edwards was out of the race. Palin is not just in the race, she's ahead - and we have six weeks to go. It is, I'd argue, the duty of the press and the blogosphere to ask any factual and fair questions to which there can be clear and factual answers. . . .

In 2008, in mid-September, we are not even allowed to ask questions about Palin's real and actual life as a mother-as-governor? That notion is as absurd as the Palin candidacy itself, in my judgment.

Of open books, any sincere and legitimate factual question is askable. . . .

Sullivan never actually spells out which factual and answerable question, in specific, he's driving at. But I think we can make a fair inference. Here's the kicker:

It seems to me that if you are on record saying that your life is an open book, and you have a state-run web-page about your infant son, and your own children's travel is paid for by the state, and you presented your infant son at a convention televised across the entire world, and you sent out a press release outing your own daughter's current pregnancy, then it is not despicable, evil, vile or outrageous for the press to ask factual, answerable questions about Sarah Palin's experiences as a pregnant and non-pregnant mother and about her marriage and about her parenting of her children.

Hmmmm. I wonder what he means by "non-pregnant"? It's a term I haven't seen used before. Perhaps David Bradley knows?

Just for good measure, Sullivan later notes:

Now I begin to understand the intimidation I have been subjected to for simply asking questions. All I can reassure my readers is: I'm now more determined than ever to reveal the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about this dangerous, vindictive Christianist cipher being foisted on the United States.

Shouldn't someone ask Sullivan exactly what the factual, answerable question about Sarah Palin is that he's determined to reveal the truth of?

It's almost as if he's speaking elliptically in order to hold to the letter of some agreement with someone about a some subject which he isn't supposed to write about . . .


Anonymous said...

-- I did the job you sent me to do.

Did you order the Code Red?


James Wigderson said...

"I'm now more determined than ever to reveal the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about this dangerous, vindictive Christianist cipher being foisted on the United States."

Even if he has to make it up or repeat every unsubstantiated smear on the internet.

James Wigderson said...

Do you think he's rolling ball bearings in his hand while he writes?

Anonymous said...

This guy has to be an embarrassment even to the shameless Obama campaign. Too bad nobody reads him except fanatics and morbidly curious conservatives.
Is there any way we could get a major network to give him a primetime show?

Anonymous said...

I wish nobody read him, but alas he's been getting record traffic. I do wonder, however, whether much of his record traffic are people like me who don't go there because they are fans, but go because they hate him?

Anonymous said...

I really do wonder whether Andy has a firm grasp on reality or whether he simply has taken too many drugs to understand what is real and what is not. Take his comments today:

" Do we have any idea of any agenda in her past except drilling for oil, the Assemblies of God, and her own ambition? Palin fits the Bush mold, but ratcheted up one more notch toward absurdity, and several more notches toward puppetry. She is a passionate Christianist - no legal abortion ever, no sex education, no gay rights, no embryonic stem cell research, creationism in schools."

As he likes to do so often, let's fisk this one:

Assemblies of God: She no longer belongs, hasn't for the past 6-7 years, left because they got too weird for her. She now belongs to a fairly benign Wasilla Bible Church, an independent church that would hardly be considered Pentacostal.

No legal abortions ever: pointless for people to even bring this topic up anymore. There is NOTHING A VP, yet alone a president, can do about it. At the very very worst, a president could nominate judges who overturn Roe V. Wade, returning it to the states, whereby between 45-50 states would legalize the very next day.

No sex education: This is simply a lie. Palin has repeatedly stated that she does not oppose teaching about condoms, referring to them as "relatively benign". She opposes explicit sex ed, which means no reference to abstinence. Go look at polls, the majority of Americans believe abstinence should be mentioned in any sex ed class, alongside protection. This is what Palin favors.

No gay rights: How does Andy reconcile this with the fact that she vetoed a bill that would strip gays of certain protection as Gov? She did so because to sign the bill would violate he oath of office. Has he ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that she favors "no gay rights"?

Creationism in schools: This has been so thoroughly debunked it's almost painful to continue to argue it. Palin has never, EVER, said that she opposes teaching evolution. Her mere 1 comment on the topic was that she was NOT OPPOSED to teaching creationism (ID) alongside evolution, and that nobody should be afraid of having that debate. That is it. She has never ever said that she believes dinosaurs roamed the earth 5000 years ago.

The irony, of course, is that Andy's main problem with Palin is that he believes her to be a liar, a pathological liar at that. Truth be told, Andy is a far greater liar these days, and he knows it.

Anonymous said...

I don't think it's as complicated as that, pg. I think Sullivan hates Palin because he suspects she wouldn't approve of his trolling for gay sex partners while HIV positive, nor of his alleged "marriage."

That's Andrew's entire concern, as it always has been. Where he lies on the political spectrum, how he feels about Christianity, whom he votes for--all are subservient to his sexual interests.

I'm not gay bashing, btw. I'm explaining the ideology of one psychologically sick puppy.

Jacob said...

alleged "marriage."
Sullivan has a marriage not an alleged "marriage". Its a valid marriage according to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Anonymous said...

I realize that. I was sarcastically referring to his lack of monogamy. (I fully support gay marriage, by the way. I just feel that one ought to be faithful to one's spouse.