Alex Massie likes Andrew Sullivan and Andrew Sullivan's blog. I mean, he really, really does. But he's worn out reading Andrew until after the election is over, because he:
...find[s] 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."
I get that. I quit reading Andrew during the GOP convention after his initial blogging puffing rumors that Palin had faked her pregnancy. The only reason I'd heard the rumors and took them seriously was because he had, and did. In fact, because Andrew is read by nearly every journalist, and taken seriously, it's arguably true that nobody is more responsible for mainstreaming that junk. I had a conversation that Sunday night, just before the convention, with a national journalist who felt the same way: if Andrew is taking this seriously, maybe there's something to it. Of course there wasn't, and I shouldn't have credited it for a moment. But I did, and I regret that. I really like and respect Andrew's writing, and will not do as some of my readers have asked, and de-link him here (though I admit it's past time for me to update the limited blogroll on this site). I find Andrew to be must reading in normal times, and it would be foolish and unjust to pronounce anathema on him because he's badly lost his perspective on Sarah Palin. Nevertheless, I'm like Alex: I just can't read him until the election is over.
I wouldn't be surprised if some Crunchy Con readers, weary of the Palin blogging here, took a pass on this blog until after November. I hope not, but that wouldn't surprise me. And that's fine. Even so, I'm going to work harder to diversify the posts here, in part because there's really not anything new to be said about Palin. Most people seem dug in about her, and impervious to changing their mind. As I've said before, I will defend her to the hilt as a culture-war Rohrshach test, but I have serious reservations about her as a politician, and potentially the next vice president. The controversy over her candidacy, though, is chiefly interesting to me for what it says about our political psychology, which is why I can't quite get enough of it.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
thomas tucker
AS is currently calling Palin a pathological liar. Over and over and over again.
Palin is not a pathological liar. Very few people are actually pathological liars, and none of them are in politics or, indeed, in any positions of authority.
That doesn't change the fact, however, that she and McCain have not only been repeatedly caught lying in the last few weeks, but have continued to make the same lies even after being called on them. Apparently hoping they can continue to lie straight through the election.
You should not, however believe Andrew Sullivan on that. You shouldn't believe anything he says, he just rambles unsupported nonsense all hours of the day.
Sullivan's postings indicative of a phobia? How ludicrous. It's an immensely important and time-sensitive subject and Sullivan is remarkable only for having the energy, interest and commitment to do as much as he can in the time available. Each of his Palin posts details and probes a different problem he has with her. It's not like it would somehow be better for him to detail only two of the 20 problems he has with her -- saner, less phobic, more "reasonable." Really, what a bizarre belief.
And Rod, for YOU of all people to talk about bloggers returning obsessively to certain topics!!! :D
lancelot lamar, the statistics in my post are excerpted from the article, and only apply to the school district where the writer has worked for the past 12 years.
A Reader, the irony in the article you posted makes me giggle! Lynn Forester de Rothschild, "CEO of the holding company EL Rothschild and wife of international banker Sir Evelyn de Rothschild" calls Barack Obama "an elitist?" ROFLMAO! Someone should send this article to Stephen Colbert!
I think Kevin Burke of Rachel's Vineyard is on to something about the ferocity of Palin criticism:
The very personal and often uncharitable criticism of vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin and her family evident in recent media coverage, and the lack of support from many feminist and child advocacy groups, may have a relationship to the collective grief, pain and guilt from personal involvement in the abortion of an unborn child.
Seeing the Palin family, in a very visible public forum, with an uncompromising and public pro life philosophy arouses deeply repressed feelings in post-abortive parents, as well as media members, counselors, health-care professionals, politicians and others who promote abortion rights, especially the abortion of children with challenges such as Down syndrome. These powerful repressed feelings of grief, guilt and shame can be deflected from the source of the wound (i.e., abortion) and projected onto an often uncharitable focus upon the trigger of these painful emotions ... the Palin family.
It is important to make the distinction that to affirm the value of the unborn in no way condemns those who have experienced the pain of abortion. Rather, this presents an opportunity to reach out to all who have been wounded by their participation in abortion with love and compassion
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.