Andrew Sullivan and Sarah Palin.

Let me make something very clear: I like, admire and respect Andrew Sullivan and his writing. I can’t remember when I first started reading his blog, but I think it must have been in early 2001. Certainly before 9/11. Since then I suspect I must have read more words written by Andrew than by any other journalist or blogger. Before his blog moved to Time and, subsequently, The Atlantic, I regularly contributed to his bi-annual pledge drives. I’d recommend his book, The Conservative Soul to anyone interested in the subject.

Heck, he’s often been kind enough to link to this blog  and, indeed, I once helped fill-in for him while he took a well-deserved break. In other words, I owe Andrew rather more than the nothing he owes me. That goes for most bloggers, mind you, even those to whom he hasn’t sent his readers. Any history of blogging - and its interaction with “traditional” journalism - that fails to include a lengthy passage on Andrew’s career is unlikely to worth reading. He’s done more for blogging than almost anyone else. I mean this.

From this you will surmise that there must be a rather hefty “but” on the way. And you would, alas, be correct. Nevertheless, the existence of this "but" does not in any way invalidate anything I've written here.

There are plenty of long-term Sullivan fans disappointed and even, in some cases, infuriated by his reaction to John McCain's decision to put Sarah Palin on the Republican ticket. That's everyone's prerogative of course and, equally obviously, Andrew can and should write whatever he damn well pleases. (Equally, I'm sure there are thousands and thousands of people who admire his recent writing and consider it the best stuff he's ever produced.) 

And let it be put on record - to use a pompous phrase sadly redolent of Andrew's recent writing - that I actually agree with him that Sarah Palin is, in many respects, under-qualified for the post she aspires to hold. I agree that it was, in some respects, a reckless gamble by the McCain campaign and that, again in some, even many, respects, it does not necessarily increase one's confidence in a McCain presidency.I'm not as completely in the tank for Obama as Andrew, but I think he's likely to be the better choice in this election. 

I'm not alone in finding Andrew's Palinphobia wearisome. As a British conservative friend put it the other day, "It's the sheer ferocity and repetitive abuse that's bizarre. He comes across a bit like these UKIPers who insist that Brussels will destroy our way of life; I agree with them that the EU is rotten, undemocratic and wasteful, but I don't feel the need to spend every waking hour running down the street shouting about it, because it's worse than our domestic politics only in scale, not in kind."

Indeed so. Most more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger posts are often nothing of the sort, of course, being but an elaborate form of concern-trolling. And perhaps this post will also end up in that category. I hope not. But I know I'm not the only Sullivan fan to have been depressed by his recent writing. That's on me, you may say, not on him and of course you'd have a point. Nonetheless...

A spot of background first: Andrew did more than any other mainstream or respectable blogger or news source to spread the rumours that Sarah Palin was never in fact pregnant this year and that her four month old baby, Trig, who has Downs Syndrome, was in fact Sarah Palin's grand-son. Andrew repeatedly insinuated that her daughter Bristol (now pregnant herself of course) was the real mother and that nothing else could explain the strange pregnancy that led to Trig's birth.

As the man put it himself: "There must be plenty of medical records and obstetricians and medical eye-witnesses prepared to testify to Sarah Palin's giving birth to Trig. There must be a record of Bristol's high school attendance for the past year. And surely, surely, the McCain camp did due diligence on this. The noise around this story is now deafening, and the weirdness of the chronology sufficient to rise to the level of good faith questions. So please give us these answers - and provide medical records for Sarah Palin's pregnancy - and put this to rest."

Later - and creditably, or so it seemed -  he admitted, that "Here's a photo that looks like it confirms Palin's pregnancy, uploaded today, on what was the last day of the Alaska Legislature's Session, on April 13, 2008, five days before Trig Palin was born. More here. This seems to put the kibbosh on this, although it would still be good to have official confirmation from the McCain campaign, which should be easy enough to do. Just a simple confirmation from the doctor who was present at the birth." 

Left unexplained, of course, was why Andrew felt he needed any such "confirmation from the doctor who was present at the birth." Beyond satisfying Andrew's unusually insatiable curiosity, what would be the point of this? Why would anyone need this confirmation? What would it prove? Given that you seem to accept that Sarah is indeed Trig's mother, what else do you need? 

Quite a bit more, it turned out. "Why not kill this rumor with Palin's medical records? A 43 year old woman's pregnancy with a Downs Syndrome child would have been intensely monitored, and the records must be a mile long. Just release them, ok? If necessary in a closed room for reporters, just as with McCain. And we can all breathe a sigh of relief and move on."

That was two weeks ago. For a spell, matters calmed down a little. At least they did with regard to the pregnancy issue. Alas, the hope this might be an end to then nonsense proved premature and it turns out that we have not been able to move on. At least, not all of us have been able to. Andrew returned to the pregnancy issue on Tuesday, devoting no fewer than five posts to the vital matter of Sarah Palin's decision to have an amniocentesis test while she was pregnant with Trig.

Let's go to the blog. At 10.45am Andrew suggested that Palin's decision to have the test, even though it posed a small, but measurable, risk to her unborn child, was "one of many mystifying weirdnesses in Palin's own account of her pregnancy." He quoted the relevant  Wikipedia page which suggests that the risk of amniocentesis-related miscarriage is no greater than 0.5% and perhaps as little as 0.0625%.

One may differ as to whether or not this was a risk worth taking. For what little it may be worth, I know a couple who, in their mid-thirties, were at long last and happily expecting their first child. They are both pro-life catholics and would have had their child no matter what. Nevertheless, they had, I believe, the amnio test which confirmed that their son would be born with Downs Syndrome. I wouldn't for a moment presume to consider them bad parents or hypocrites for having all the available tests performed. And actually, I believe that the confirmation that their child had DS did permit them to prepare themselves for the reality of dealing with that situation. I know that it never crossed their minds to abort the infant, nor do I think they were hypocrites in wanting to have as much information about their son as they could learn. As John Schwenkler suggests, doctors also put enormous pressure upon pregnant women to have every possible test performed. One may, as John says, think Palin could or should have said no to it, but you have a harder time persuading me that it's any of my - or your - business. 

But we move on, wearily perhaps but necessarily nonetheless. To give Andrew credit, he was happy to post correspondence from readers, not all of which dovetailed with his own odd concerns. Still at 1.31pm he was wondering why a pro-life woman would risk her child's life and suggesting that, contra my example above, "Palin's decision was atypical for a pro-life mother."

But even if this is true, so what? Everyone's life is atypical to one degree or another. And why, again, does any of this matter? Then there was this: "But if you're preparing for a possibly difficult labor and birth, why would you then wing it for a speech and airplane flights from Texas to Wasilla after your water has broken or your amniotic fluid is already leaking and you are having contractions? If the point of the amniocentesis was to take every precaution to avoid a dangerous birth, then the decision to fly from Alaska to Texas and back, after contractions and leakage of amniotic fluid, is bizarre."

It's hard to understand the complaint here, beyond the suggestion that Sarah Palin is a bad mother, despite there being, as best I can tell, no substantive grounds for this insinuation. There is no evidence - or certainly none that Andrew has cited - that suggests Palin recklessly endangered her child's life. Indeed, she consulted doctors before returning to Alaska. Equally, having given birth on four previous occasions it is not unreasonable to suppose that she might have an idea of what her body was up to. Certainly she would seem better placed to understand these things than I am, or for that matter, than any other blogger is.

At 3.15pm Andrew quotes more reader email (to his credit) and delivers a verdict: "As I suspected, the Palin decision remains befuddling and contradicts her resolutely pro-life stance." Sadly, the evidence of this contradiction still remains elusive.

Undaunted, we press on. By 6.27pm (all times EST obviously) Andrew has reached a state of middling-to-high dudgeon. "As a public figure, and perhaps a president of the US next January, she could always, you know, explain. The baby was a major prop at the convention and is constantly used to appeal to pro-life voters. The pregnancy has been in the New York Times, People, and the Anchorage Daily News. It's not like this is a secret, or that the pro-life debate isn't one Palin is eager to have. So why won't she tell us more." Note, again, the suggestion, veiled though it may be, that Palin come clean about what, absent plausible evidence - heck, any evidence! - to the contrary seems to be a non-existent controversy, let alone a non-existent conspiracy...

Oddly, Andrew, who is I think, in the personally pro-life but reluctantly pro-choice camp (as indeed am I) has reduced poor Trig to the status of a mere "prop". Now it is true that that Palin's decision to have a DS baby gives her enormous credibility as far as the pro-life movement is concerned. And, for sure, that was doubtless reinforced by Trig's presence at the GOP convention. But one may recognise this without imputing any devious motives behind Trig's presence in St Paul. Would Andrew really have wanted the infant to be hidden away, out of sight? All four candidates paraded their children at the respective conventions, but it's only Trig whose presence is somehow unseemly? What should Palin have done? Locked him away? 

Perhaps that would indeed have been, in one respect, more seemly but it would also have been, I hazard, somewhat grotesque. Furthermore, if Trig had not been on display at the convention one can easily imagine how some folk - but not Andrew! - would have used this as grounds to restart whispering campaigns about the child's provenance and so on...

If only it could all end there. But at 7.20pm Andrew posted another item on the controversial subject of Sarah Palin's pregnancy. "As for blog "rumors" about a Down Syndrome pregnancy, all this blog has done is ask for facts and context about a subject that the Palin campaign has put at the center of its message, facts about a baby held up at a convention as a political symbol for the pro-life movement, and cited in Palin's acceptance speech. You do that, you invite questions about it. I make absolutely no apologies for doing my job."

Readers can decide for themselves the extent to which these rumours exist - in the press and mainstream blogosphere - outside Andrew's imagination.Who knows, perhaps it's fake baby after all? I mean, I'm only asking questions, right? That's my job!

Apparently so! "If a story does not makes sense or raises serious questions about the sincerity of a candidate's embrace of a core political message, it is not rumor-mongering to ask about it. It is journalism. And in the absence of any information from the Palin campaign, I have aired every possible view trying to explain it. What else am I supposed to do? Pretend these questions don't exist? Pretend her story makes sense to me? I owe my readers my honest opinion. That's not rumor-mongering, it's fulfilling my core commitment to my readers."

Never mind the gawd-help-us Bob Herbertism of this "core commitment" guff, look at how - in just a few hours! - Andrew has reached, it seems, the seemingly puzzling conclusion that Todd and Sarah Palin's decision to have the amnio test undermines the "sincerity" of the Palins' pro-life opinions. Puzzling, I say, because an innocent could look at this and conclude that Andrew is saying that they had Trig because they suspected it would be politically convenient to have a DS infant...

Harsh, you say! And perhaps you would be correct. Yet how else is one supposed to interpret this passage? Andrew casts aspersions upon their pro-life bona fides while ignoring the seemingly more salient fact that they actually brought the pregnancy to term and, lo, Trig was born. I can see how one could argue that Palin was a hypocrite - as Andrew suggests she is when he questions the "sincerity" of her "embrace" of the anti-abortion position  - if she had the amnio test and then had an abortion. But she didn't, did she? She had the test - for reasons that quite properly remain as private as any woman's decision to have an abortion should - carried the child to term. Most people would not have, but in Andrew's world that raises more questions about Palin than it does about our attitudes to abortion.

Funny old world, eh?

One other thing: of course the rancid elements of the right would have made hay with any suggestion that Obama's wife or daughters (were they a few years older) been in any comparable situation. All sensible folk know how ugly that would have been. No decent person, I hope, would have endorsed the attendant rubbish this would have produced. That doesn't mean one has to be in favour of such mendacity when it is produced by folk one admires in the service of a candidate that, absent a Bob Barr landslide, one would rather see win than lose.

To repeat: every blogger and many journalists owe a lot to Andrew. And he can and should write whatever he fucking likes. I'll still read him, for sure. Which is to say that, unlike some of my friends, I'm not going to give up on Andrew Sullivan just yet. I despair of his recent turn, but I hope this will pass.

Fast forward to December, anyone?

UPDATE: Andrew responds here.

Comments

[MattF]

I became very cautious about Sullivan when I realized the intensity and specificity of his hatred for the Clintons. Couldn't help wondering what, precisely, Bill and Hillary did to deserve that. Compared, say, with... I don't know... Mitt Romney? Whatever. Politicians are not nice people, that's just the way of the world.

Anyhow, I'm not too surprised to find that he's gotten himself a new bete noir.

[Anthony]

Hmm. Interesting. I'm very far from keen on Governor Palin and I was pretty hacked off when John McCain picked her but I agree that the angle of Sullivan's attacks is illegitimate and that his tone is not, how you say, lavishly attractive.

Unfortunately, it fits something of a pattern recently, whereby he'll latch onto something and go on a frenzied rhetorical jaunt that can last weeks. When the issue at hand was torture, one could forgive him a degree of frantic monomania and whatnot, but this thing... not so much. It's not terribly becoming. I don't like the idea of Sarah Palin as Veep (and I'm pretty sure that if Chelsea Clinton had fallen preggers out of wedlock during the Clinton administration the same people now defending Governor Palin would have branded the Clinton girl a slut and the Clintons manifestly negligent parents) but the way Sullivan is going after her personal life is pretty dirty pool.

[Michael]

Polticians are not nice people MattF? Who are then? Priests? Pastors? Scientists? Teachers? Like the rest of us, if you prick them they bleed. Many would accept Mandela or Vaclav Havel are good guys too.

Alex is right about Sullivan's histrionics -it's as if the Daily Dish and Huffington are competing to be the most outraged. By the way, does anybody else think the Hollywood contibutors on Huffington have been delivered from Team America: World Police? It reminds me of the celebs who came out against Boris last June (Weir, Rickman, the usual suspects). It says far more about them than their opponents.

[MattF]

Michael writes:

'Polticians are not nice people MattF? Who are then? Priests? Pastors? Scientists? Teachers? Like the rest of us, if you prick them they bleed. Many would accept Mandela or Vaclav Havel are good guys too.'

Well, sure. And I should note as well that Sullivan sometimes gets weird about non-politicians (like Paul Krugman). But I hold to my point that Sullivan's treatment of Palin should not be regarded as a surprise, given his treatment of the Clintons.

[toby]

It is worth pointing out that Barack Obama was one of the first people to point out that Sarah Palin's family was off limits.

Andrew is flying solo on this one, and admits it.

Excepting his posts on the children, and the amnio-centesis, Andrew's assaults on Palin's character and reputation have no more offensive material than what is being posted elsewhere on the web, and are better than some. Personally, I avoid the most obnoxious posts.

It may be academic - Palin's star has quite faded. For the fist time, McCain's favourability rating is passing her's out. Her unfavourability rating is growing correspondly.

Press attacks do have something to do with this, but it is mostly because she could not possibly live up to the expectations established for her at the Republican convention. Repetitive jokes about hockey moms, pit bulls and community organizers can only get you so far. She has said nothing new or interesting in two weeks and is definitely falling flat.

She may even become the liability to McCain that people thought she might be. Andrew may be able soon to return to the witty and urbane persona we know and love.

[Sweating Through Fog]

There is something obsessive in Andrew's focus on this issue. He seems determined to question every intimate decision she's made, in order to demonstrate that she is a bad mother, or a religious hypocrite.

Absent here is any notion that people have a zone of privacy. Once a political opponent takes an opposing stance, every choice they've ever made, or members of their family have ever made is fair game. What is scary about this is that Sullivan is not some Daily Kos nut, he's a mainstream writer and blogger.

[John]

I gave up on Sullivan awhile ago, once I realized I already new what he was going to post about. If it was an Obama piece, it would be a defensive post detailing why Obama can and should be trusted. If it was a Palin post, well you know how those are. He was the first blog I found, so I loved it and checked it often, but in the last few months he's gone of the rails.

[Ron]

I'll stand in defense of Andrew, although I think the thing about Trig was pointless. But, Andrew has been driven by 2 things:
1) Palin has told VERIFIABLE whoppers
2) Those whoppers don't seem to be making as much impact on the voter psyche as they should
So, he is outraged, and he is talented and energetic enough to pour the appropriate rage onto his blog.
Andrew is not alone in his anti-Palin rage, see TPM, for instance.
I do predict that, as the (independent) public gets to know Palin, they will ask what McCain was thinking.

[Stacey]

I am more sympathetic to Andrew. While I do not dispute anything Alex has said, most of Andrew's posts have not been about Palin's family, it seems to me, but abut her honesty overall.

We've had years to vet McCain, Obama, and Biden. Sometimes it got nasty. With Palin, the process is - and must be - sped up. It is not pretty. But then again, it was not my idea to push her into this spotlight so late in the game.

And so I cut Adrew a lot of slack. The clock is ticking.

[Dave]

I personally don't understand Sullivan's going off on her last pregnancy. I just don't care. That being said, I'm on board with everything else he's said about Palin. She seems to have no regard for basic truths. She can get up and lie seamlessly. I was against the Bridge to Nowhere, I'm against earmarks, I'm completely in favor of an investigation into Troopergate. Aw Shucks, none of this true.

Untruthful and unqualified. Wow, there's a great combination. And the no interviews thing is downright pathetic. Someone who can't give a simple interview after 19 days has no business being on the ticket - it's insulting to the country.

And she's accused of Abuse of Power, one of the worst things a politician can do. She stands accused of screwing up a guy's career because he did his job.

Well, we'll see if it matters to her legions that the GOP is now trying to sweep it under the rug. They're claiming it has become partisan politics - in a state that is completely Republican. If people buy that, we truly are living in a parallel universe.

[ndm]

Anyone who thinks Andrew Sullivan's criticism of the Clintons to have been extreme never read the Wall Street Journal op-ed pages under Robert Bartley. The criticisms of the Clintons there were so plentiful the Wall Street Journal managed to publish six volumes of greatest hits.

The problem is not Andrew Sullivan - it is John McCain. Within hours of the announcement of his selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate it became clear that John McCain had done minimal vetting of his running mate - someone who could be President of the United States in four months. Not only did that demonstrate appalling lack of judgment it meant John McCain lost control of the vetting process.

The last thing a political team should want is a team of journalists - and bloggers - vetting their candidate armed with the knowledge that fame and fortune will come to the one who destroys the candidacy. And the press quickly found that not only was Sarah Palin unvetted (and unqualified) but that she had a tabloid lifestyle which did not jive with the wholesome "just a mam" image she presented to the public.

Sarah Palin's latest pregnancy was indeed strange, both in the announcement of it at a very late stage in her pregnancy and the circumstances leading to the delivery. The most interesting comment on Sullivan's blog yesterday came from a "professional ob/gyn" who wrote:

Down syndrome increases the risk for fetal distress during labor, increasing the need for c-sections. In addition, having had 4 previous children, the risk for a precipitous labor (a very quick labor and delivery) was certainly increased with Gov. Palin.

Knowing the increased risk of "fetal distress" and "precipitous labor" it beggars belief that Sarah Palin would get on a plane and start an eight hour journey from a city with some of the best hospitals in the country to some rural backwater. This demonstrates an appalling lack of judgment which, in my opinion, borders on child endangerment. It is certainly not the type of judgment we need in a Vice President or even, God forbid, Pesident.

Sarah Palin has made her "small town" values fair game for the media because her expression of these values is not consistent with the "small town" values her fellow evangelists would like imposed on the rest of America. Those of us in blue states are right to criticize those in red states espousing phony values even as their red states have appalling levels of teen pregnancy, teen marriage, and the early divorce which is the inevitable consequence.

All this, and we haven't even got to any of the myriad other ways in which Sarah Palin is manifestly unfit to be Vice President of the United States. But don't blame Andrew Sullivan, blame the person responsible for putting her in the national spotlight - John McCain.

[Sheila]

If you continue to write about Sarah Palin's fifth child, please use the appropriate 'people first' language. Trig is a child with Down syndrome (not Downs Syndrome.) And please cite your sources as to how and why you know that 'most people would not have carried the baby to term.' I find it terribly interesting that you along with Michael Gerson have such intimate knowledge regarding the percentage of couples who decide to bring their children with Down syndrome to term, yet neither of you cite any source for your insights.

[KevinA]

I basically agree with "toby." Frankly, most of his stuff on Palin hs been great, exposing her for the unserious fraud she is (IMHO).

I was OK, to a point, with the first round of personal stuff. She was a national unknown and there were (scurrilous, as it turned out) questions flying around the blogosphere. When that was resolved, I thought, "Alright enough of the personal stuff (except Troopegate, where the personal is relevant)."

The amnio stuff is not particularly relevant, IMHO, and a wholly private issue.

[Mike S]

Andrew has posted a response to this blog at his own. And he ends it by comparing his questioning of Trig's birth with those who questioned if Iraq had WMD's.

As for:
"2) Those whoppers don't seem to be making as much impact on the voter psyche as they should"

I think the politophiles are just being impatient with the rest of the country. Palin will have to impress voters before the election, but we're not in a rush. Personally, I want to like her but she's starting to sound like a trained Parrot, repeating the same (often exaggerated) lines.

The problem with having 37 million people watch your acceptance speech is that they're going to want something new on the campaign trail. I haven't seen that yet.

[Dan]

I read Andrew Sullivan regularly. I'd leave this comment on his site if he allowed comments.

I probably would be more upset with his anti-Palin fixation had he not had a dry run of it earlier this year in his anti-Hillary period. However, while I agree the pregnancy stuff was over the line, and I find his tone (as I did with Hillary) a bit too strident, he is right about one thing - we just don't know this woman, and that's intolerable for a VP candidate.

Now, he may have taken that one point and turn it into an almost hysterical jihad, but if you've been reading the guy since the turn of the century, you ought to know by now that that's what he does on occasion - go off the deep end. And if you read him regularly you'll know that he often recognizes that trait in himself and publicly questions his own conclusions (at least since the Iraq War debacle). So do what I do when you come to a Palin post - glance at it, decide if there's anything new worth considering, and if it's about babies or tanning beds, move on. He'll post something else in a minute or too - he can't help it.

[MoeLarryAndJesus]

Palin will be a footnote in history - the most ludicrous person ever to be part of a major national ticket. Let Andrew have fun with her political corpse while it's still kicking.

[fluteprof]

For Sully, Palin is the new Clinton. The unfortunate thing about all this is that (like most crazy conspiracy theorists) he asks some really pertinent questions amidst all the shrill nonsense.

But it is the shrillness of his tone, the frequency of his rants, and the strangeness of his ideation that trumps all the other reasonableness. It is has rendered him useless (for this campaign).

One wishes he would just put down his placard and go home.

[ndm]

Shiela inquires about termination rates following a Down Syndrome diagnosis. The abstract to the paper "Termination rates after prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome, spina bifida, anencephaly, and Turner and Klinefelter syndromes: a systematic literature review. European Concerted Action: DADA (Decision-making After the Diagnosis of a fetal Abnormality)" by Mansfield C, Hopfer S, Marteau TM states:

The aims of this systematic literature review are to estimate termination rates after prenatal diagnosis of one of five conditions: Down syndrome, spina bifida, anencephaly, and Turner and Klinefelter syndromes, and to determine the extent to which rates vary across conditions and with year of publication. Papers were included if they reported (i) numbers of prenatally diagnosed conditions that were terminated, (ii) at least five cases diagnosed with one of the five specified conditions, and (iii) were published between 1980 and 1998. 20 papers were found which met the inclusion criteria. Termination rates varied across conditions. They were highest following a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome (92 per cent; CI: 91 per cent to 93 per cent) and lowest following diagnosis of Klinefelter syndrome (58 per cent; CI: 50 per cent to 66 per cent). Where comparisons could be made, termination rates were similar in the 1990s to those reported in the 1980s. (my emphasis)

[Jack]

Yes, Andrew tends to go on tangents in his blogging. For myself I don't particularly care to hear about Palin's family life, such as it is. He is, however, 100% correct in his posts about Palin being a fraud and he is one of the first to understand this. Now that the air is beginning to go out of the Palin bubble I pray we can all move on to something else. Possibly even the positions of the candidates?

[Chris]

You can fairly argue that Sullivan's curiosity about Sarah Palin's pregnancy is misplaced. But his outrage about Palin's lack of qualifications, sequestration from the media, and bald-faced lies is *entirely* warranted.

Tellingly, almost all of his critics (with the possible exception of this blog) avoid addressing the serious political questions he raises. In so doing, the commentariat has become complicit in the GOP's dishonesty. How far can we allow the standards of our political system to fall?

[Dave C.]

I don't think Andrew has ever been more excitable than when he was cheerleading for Bush, Cheney and (especially) Rumsfeld in the first days of the Iraq war. I think his total and unflinching awakening to that reality is what makes him all the more valuable right now. I keep coming back to him because at his core he is a questioner, not an enabler, and in a time when we need all the questioners we can find, the last thing we should do is criticize him for excitability. The fact that he is speaking where so many are silent is not his fault, it's to his credit.

[KKruger]

I'm rather liking Sullivan's attempts to ferret out who Palin is. His frustration equals mine and his questions are legit. Instead of what seems to be a new lie every day from Palin and/or McCain, they could have wrapped up much of this many days ago with a couple press conferences. Instead, they repeat the same crap--even after being called on it (Alaska provides 20% of the US energy needs? Pleae!), or tweak their rhetoric toward a new deceitful tangent. It's astonishing, and gives rise to the increasingly shared belief that the McCain camp will do anything or say anything to win, regardless of the truth (which makes them reminiscent of the Clinton's, writ large, the thing that Sullivan most disliked about them, and a feeling I share).

The early 'Trig issue' rose because of the reports of the rather strange chain of events that took place when Palon's water broke in Texas, and because many Alaskans were reporting that either they had no idea that she was pregnant or that she looked plainly not pregnant when she was reportedly 5 months along. Since very early on she chose to use the baby as one of her campaign symbols, it seemed a germane question to ask when several in Alaska were questioning the pregnancy as well.

Yes, I suppose Sullivan can be 'histrionic'. Read Josh Marshall, et al., over at talkingpointsmemo.com then. He's been on the lies of Palin and McCain from the beginning.

[travitt]

Palin hasn't been honest about anything else since her debut. Seriously, not one single thing. Why give her a benefit of the doubt that she hasn't earned, and in fact has trashed virtually every time she's opened her maw. There's so far no reason to assume she's been honest about anything, including such basic personal details such as her pregnancy.

[David]

Your pro-life Catholic friends who had an amnio had every right to do so, as did Palin. That was their ‘choice.’ It seems fair to point out that your friends and Palin endangered the lives of their fetuses, while trying to pass themselves off as--to use your phrase--pro-life. The only point is not that Palin is a “bad mother,” but that she is a hypocrite.

Sullivan did not “reduce[] Trig to the status of a mere ‘prop.’” It was Palin who brought a ~5 month old baby to a multi-thousand person event at 10:00 p.m. And you seem to miss the difference in age between Trig and the other candidates’ kids (as well as Palin’s other kids), when you point out that the other kids attended the conventions. I have a 6-month old son, believe me, age matters.

Furthermore, I think you’re missing the obvious implications of the facts that we do know surrounding Palin’s pregnancy: e.g. she did not tell her parents or her other children about the pregnancy until the third trimester, and she had an amnio to determine whether there were chromosomal defects. The writing is on the wall: Palin considered aborting the pregnancy. Put another way, Palin chose to not abort the pregnancy. Of course she doesn’t think other women should be able to make that choice.

[Martin]

Andrew Sullivan has been the only journalist to keep me from succumbing entirely to insanity these past few weeks. When EVERYONE ELSE in the media (left and right) was giving McCain/Palin passes, Andrew had the courage to say "WTF!?!?!" I, for one, will be--and am--eternally grateful.

[Jeff Akston]

I couldn't agree more. I actually wrote an email to my brother YESTERDAY saying that I've broken up with Sullivan's blog. I can't even read him anymore. I agree with him on many many more issues than I disagree. However, he doesn't talk about those issues anymore. He has one issue and that's it. He hates McCain and Palin and will pounce on any dailykos-level rumor he comes across.

As a libertarian/conservative, it's peculiar, that he hasn't mentioned fiscal policy in months other than to (erroneously) place the blame of our current mortgage issues at the feet of Bush & the Republicans. He does not question Obama's redistributive plans or obscene plans for government expansion.

It's 100% about Palin and McCain. I checked on the site today and 3 of the top 4 posts were about "the lies" of the McCain camp.

He's become Kos. He's become Olberman. He's become a favorite of the democraticunderground. Like your examples above, he publishes baseless attacks, rumors, and hearsay. He parses quotes to make things seem more incendiary (the pregnancy, the book bannings, AIP, membership, the affair rumor, sex ed to Kindergarteners, the list goes on and on.)

He's completely lost any objectivity and critical thinking. He is all hate on Palin and McCain all the time. This visceral hatred has completely clouded his logic to the point that it's basically gone.

[Mark]

I agree with you that Andrew Sullivan has taken specific elements of his vetting of Sarah Palin too far. In my view, the family is off limits, period. On the other hand I disagree with the assertion that he is taking the whole effort too far. There is an important piece of context that is missing from your analysis - the critically short attention span of the mainstream media and their devolution from reporters and journalists to that of a Greek chorus (how much time was wasted on "lipstick on a pig?") I'll live with his occasional histrionics if it is in service of getting this election and press coverage focused on issues of substance - like telling half-truths and outright lies about one's record and views.

[CitizenE]

Like almost everyone during this extremely important and dangerous electoral season, Sullivan has his obsessions. His Clintonmania and, likewise, his complete inablility to do anything other than unquestionally lionize Reagan and Goldwater, when their politics--like them or dislike them--are the root source for the ascendency of George Bush and Sarah Palin show his willingness to get caught up in personalities.

However, there is something quite insidious about McCain and Palin's campaign, which makes a strategy of taking the usual foibles of politicians to a villainous extreme, that requires a daily rebuttal. Like Sullivan, I believe the very foundation of our national greatness may well be at stake here. Because he advertises himself as a conservative, and because conservatives have invested so much in the illusion that conservative governance is the salvation of democracy, when every fact on the ground shows otherwise, they attack Sullivan rather than owning their own failures. After the debacle in the Justice Department, they wonder why anyone would have problems with Sarah Palin's brand of governance. After the abject hypocrisy of John Mc Cain (yesterday against bailing out AIG, today for it--how much of this daily pandering can really go on before even Republicans have to own up), noting Palin's personal hypocrises--Sullivan certainly must feel like the boy in Anderson's fable.
Conservatism, Bush-Cheney, McCain Palin--really why do we have to fight over and over and over, every other minute, when it really is time, even for conservatives, to say "enough." How many disasters will it take? And everyone else, who know that, or should, may well find themselves grateful for Sullivan's standard bearing in this election season somewhere down the line.

[Liam Shannon]

Andrew Sullivan brings some very good insight to some very complex issues.

Is everything he blogs in real time correct? By definition, no.

So what.

It's not as if he is taking valuable editorial page space from other writers with more legitimate points. He operates in a medium that, by its nature, and the nature of those who read it, is more about quantity than quality. Individual ideas that merit it will rise up and propagate. Those that are less viable will die off. The key is that people like Andrew, who approach problems and issues from a unique POV, continue to do so. That is the promise of the internet and why, even if he is wrong about Palin (which I should add, I don't think he is), he should keep doing exactly what he is doing.

His efforts, though inherantly imperfect, bring valuable new breeding stock into the field of ideas.

Liam

[David]

NDM:

"Down Syndrome" or "Down's Syndrome" are both correct. If he's made a mistake, it's leaving out the apostrophe, not adding the 's.'

[Mort]

To those who are burying their heads in the sand:

Sarah Palin has proved herself to be a habitual liar with a W-like contempt for pesky facts and truth telling in addition to possessing a moral and intellectual certainty much in advance of her education and experience. Whether she will ultimately cause any real harm is of course unknown. However, I challenge anyone, whatever your political disposition, to make a credible case that if she were through unforeseen circumstance to become President that the consequences wouldn't likely be disastrous.

This irresponsible choice by John McCain has the potential to badly injure not only the United States, but by proxy the rest of the world. Scoff at your peril.

[Bert Krama]

I think this has to do more with the fact that we're six weeks out from an election that might put a telegenic but otherwise unqualified person into the White House, second only to septuagenarian. Compound this with the fact that McCain has abandoned all the straight-shooter pretense of his persona, something that Mr. Sullivan once pinned so much hope, in both her selection and his campaign of late. Meanwhile the media seems more than willing to enable that campaign by treating the election as something akin to a reality tv show contest and avoiding any journalistic responsibility. In the light of this and of the Right's utter failure to hold itself to any value beyond raw power over the past eight years (again, those values being things that Mr. Sullivan holds dear) and seems obvious why he's all but jumping and up and down and screaming at the top of his lungs. Either McCain/Palin is elected and wrecks the country or they go down in flames and unscrupulous hacks and liars and wreck Conservatism. Either way, he loses. More power to him, I say.

[vclar]

Palin doesn't believe that a woman should have privacy or autonomy in making decisions about her pregnancy. That Palin is so scrutinized by Andrew Sullivan for her actions during her pregnancy is totally appropriate. Why should she be allowed the privacy and dignity she denies other women? Sullivan’s scrutiny is hardly as invasive when you consider what women would experience if Sarah Palin gets to enact laws governing reproductive choice.

[Francisco]

I think Sullivan's work is great. He's a challenging figure to anyone that leans too far in either ideological direction, and he places most of his faith in the virtues of evidence and argument. I've followed his arguments regarding Palin closely from the onset, since like many people, I wanted to get my bearings on this historical event. His logic has been consistent. As the evidence began to surface, he made claims that were consistent with current knowledge. As more and more evidence became public, he revised his positions and discarded any theories that were unsupported, including the Trig story, and concentrated on those that were most essential given the current lack of vetting of Palin's record and policies.

That's what you would expect a blogger with integrity to do. In fact, I would say it's refreshing. It appeals to reason above traditional partisan positions, which eschew evidence and argument for dogmatic, politically driven rhetoric. McCain could learn a thing or two about being a maverick from Sullivan.

[Mark]

Do you know when Andrew Sullivan was wrong? When he kept calling Hillary Clinton "Dick Cheney in a pantsuit."

He is very much not wrong in attacking Sarah Palin every step of the way. She's a liar and a fool. And if you actually think about the issues and still vote for McCain, you're a fool too.

[Andrew]

Sullivan's wrong when he says Palin used Trig as a prop at the convention.

She used him as a prop at her introduction in Ohio to cover Bristol's pregnant belly, though.

I was undecided before the conventions and admittedly leaning Obama. But the Palin selection pushed me into Barack's arms.

The appetite of the press for information on Palin is a direct result of the McCain campaign's effort to keep her hidden from them.

Don't expect it to stop until she's exposed for the unqualified candidate that she is.

[dave]

I truly appreciate the dogmatic approach Sullivan has taken with the Palin inquiries. Having said that, i think he should lay off the Trig pregnancy. There's no way he will get to the bottom of that, especially in 7 weeks. And he hurts his cause by focusing on it becasue there are 2 gazillion other questions to ask about this person's qualifications and knack for lying to us. By devoting time to this stuff he probably is scaring off potential readers to his blog who might want to find out about the more legitimate stuff.
Anyways, let's suppose she is lying about something with this pregnancy. So what. We already know she's a liar. Her lies about other things affect us more than her supposed lie about this.

[MikeF]

Sure, there's a reasonable basis for Andrew's policy and experience-based rants about Palin. That's not the issue at hand though, is it? The problem is his breathless insinuations that Bristol was Trig's real mother. His excuse of "I'm just asking questions" is the same lame cop-out that I heard coming from the the worst smearers of Obama ("I'm not saying he's a secret Muslim terrorist Kenyan citizen who hates the American flag - I'm just asking the tough questions"). Hopefully he turns off Kos-diary mode when the election's done. The slanderous anti-Palin crap and the ad-nauseum "lying liar McCain the liar" posts have left a gaping hole in the blogosphere.

[AvidBlogReader]

What is Alex Massie's point here?

Andrew Sullivan has pointed out about 10 different unequivocal lies spoken by the Governor of Alaska.

I should add, that i learnt more about amniocentesis and the whole basis of the pro-life idea by reading Sullivan's posts on the whole down syndrome baby affair.

I think what Massie has missed, is that the only way to actually counter spin, is to get down deep into the facts.

Nobody would call Andrew Sullivan's interpretation of any fact to be unreasonable.

After all, what is Sullivan's basic point? It is that:

If Governor Palin was going to have the baby anyways, why did she undergo a test, the conduct of which could have increased risk to the unborn baby?

This is absolutely valid precisely because Governor Palin is pro-life, and because she is asking for votes based on her pro-life stance.

It all boils down to Votes Alex. It is a legitimate question and atleast Sullivan is not squeamish about getting into it. And i have to say, he gets into it with more class than anyone else i have read recently.

The ferocity of Sullivan's blogging since the Palin pick is down to the shift in his view of John McCain. Sullivan just takes this election more seriously than those who don't want to be seen as being less than nice to the republican candidate.

The stakes are too serious.. and Sullivan is kicking the tires more seriously than anybody else.

After all, each passing day proves that pretty much all of Governor Palin's claims are at least easily contested.

Why is Andrew Sullivan the only conservative blogger calling the McCain-Palin lies lies? Why is he the only one who thinks that its outrageous that something that has been pointed out as a lie keeps getting repeated?

Politeness and deference has to be earned, and Obama has earned Sullivans. Palin didn't even try.

[dave]

Having said what i said previously...the stuff about her older kids, i believe, is up for criticism. If you are going to trumpet your kid's patriotism because he chose to join the Army then i want to know about his previous run-ins with the law. Apparently he had a substance abuse problem(opiates) that got him in some trouble. Maybe this joining of the Army has more to do with that than any "patriotism" he may fell.

[Luc]

I do not care about Palins family life and do no think it should be a matter of debate.

What I do care about is that someone who could be the most powerful person in the world in a few months introduces herself to the wider public with a tale of lies, lies, and more lies (and the media not calling her out). The Bush presidency will look like an open and accessible one compared to a Palin presidency.

Whatever your problem is with Sullivan - the documentation of the Palin farce is important.

[SB]

It's funny that in responding to this post, Andrew Sullivan quoted an early post of his about Palin, in which he said: "She named two daughters after television witches."

That was a lie on Sullivan's part (Palin's daughters couldn't have been named after television witches who postdated them), and he's still repeating it.

[Lemon]

There is absolutely no evidence that Palin considered abortion. I know a number of women who would never have considered abortion who had the amnio because it was strongly recommended to them by a doctor. Caring for a special needs child requires planning. Also, Down Syndrome is not the only condition that the amnio tests for, some conditions would have required very specialized medical care at the moment of birth (I imagine some may actually require special care in utero - but I do not know this with certainty).

I would also point out that I know women who have had the amniocentesis without being fully advised of the risks (they were told that there was a "very slight chance" that it could increase the risk of miscarriage, but the doctor downplayed the risk). We cannot know what Palin was told.

I am pro-life, and though I would not personally go through with an amniocentesis, I would not question the decision of someone who did so on the recommendation of a doctor. Many things slightly increase the risk of a miscarriage. Should Sarah Palin have quit her stressful job and stayed in bed to prove that she did everything she could to make sure her child was carried to term?

There is plenty wrong with Sarah Palin as a vice presidential candidate, but by harping on the medical decisions she made during her pregnancy, Sullivan comes across as a sexist pig. No male pro-life candidate would ever go through this kind of vetting of his "record".

[Kelly]

There are 6 weeks left. We have to make a decision on what kind of judgement she has...and there is a big vacuum. We are having to look at any information we can get our hands on. Most of what we have been given by the campaign unravels within 24 hours as not wholly, or even partially, true.

WIth McCain and Obama basically tied...she is awfully close to being our VP.

If Ms. Palin can give us some truthful information about her experience that we can judge her on...maybe we would stop looking at Facebook pages.

[bipolar2]

. . . Sarah So-White (with dwarf hero Old Salty) wanna dominate US

** Welcome to Dominatrix Sarah’s little world of pain **

Old Salty is a doddering dupe. Now he’s just along for the ride into an all-American abyss of fundamentalist political ideology, Dominionism.

Dominatrix Sarah comes “wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross.” She is exactly the gender traitor dominionists need to jumpstart their wet dreams of a holy, xian dictatorship.

Like some pernicious Tinkerbell, Dom Sarah would make “The Handmaid’s Tale” come painfully alive. Voiceover the trailer: In a polluted dystopia policed by xian thugs, a rebellious 20 year old finds herself condemned to sexual slavery because she holds a rare gift, her fertility. (adapted from IMDb.com/title/tt0099731)

Margaret Atwood’s novel depicts a society where women have been stripped of all rights. Gilead, an Afghanistan like slice of a destroyed America, is a nation ruled by transnational corporate overlords.

Dominatrix Sarah really energizes core Bible-Dom fans. She’s a true believer, a puritanical atavism. What’s wrong with whipping up fervor among consenting male voters? Dom Sarah wants to treat all American women to faith-based, strict discipline.

bipolar2

[John]

One of the interesting things for me around the rumours that circulated about Palin's son Trig being her grandson was the fact that this was EXACTLY the situation in my wife's family.

In fact, the child in question didn't find out her sister was actually her mother until she was 17.

So for me, this wasn't so strange to question a situation like this, despite the fact that it's mildly distasteful.

If there is anything "funny" about this situation, it's that Biden's name was cleared by the fact that, no, Trig couldn't be her child, because she's pregnant right now.

So, I'm sorry, but seeing as social conservatives have made issues like abstinence education central to their philosophy, the failure of Palin to "keep her own house in order" is directly relevant to this case.

Andrew is doing exactly what every journalist in the world should be doing. Pointing out how this woman is unfit for the role of VP.

[Paul]

this is an exhaustive (if not exhausting) accounting of Sullivan's postings regarding Palen. However I'm thankful Sully is so rigorous in his vetting of this candidate - at least somebody is. Interesting if not telling that all his apparently "hostile" readers help contribute upwards of a million hits daily on his blog of late.

[Steve Smith]

Andrew's one of the few independent journalists who has not made me question my own sanity lately. Sarah Palin is a pathalogical liar, far, far worse than the Clintons. The fact that she is a 72 year-old heartbeat away from the Presidency sends chills up my spine. We have barely over a month to expose her for the fraud that she is, and I don't believe the MSM will do it unless it is prodded to do so. So while I understand your concern, I actually think Andrew's doing America a favor right now.

http://recklessmccain.wordpress.com

[Heather]

Yes, so many friends are leaving Andrew Sullivan's blog, which is why his traffic is at an all-time high. Logic anyone? Anyone?

[Barbara]

Although I find his focus on the baby/pregnancy aspect to be tendentious bordering on obsessive, I think Sullivan has been overall quite fair to Palin.

In further defense of his focus on Palin's family, however, it would be a lot less seemly if McCain and Palin herself had not signalled quite so clearly that they planned to take advantage of the "beautiful family" angle to promote her candidacy, especially to women. As a working mother, I am annoyed at this, and think that if you really don't want your family life being fodder for journalistic speculation, you should work a little harder to develop an alternative narrative for the basis of your candidacy.

And as far as I am concerned, Andrew can never say too many timnes how absolutely astonishing it is that Palin has yet to utter one unscripted comment in front of the public. We all deserve better.