Bristol and the Haters

From her Facebook page:

Willow and I shouldn’t have reacted to negative comments about our family. We apologize. On a nicer note, thank you for supporting the great competition in Dancing with the Stars!

Thank you supporters who continue to support. The haters are already pulling out all the stops this week to destroy.

“May we always be happy, and may our enemies know it!”

That’s just it, you see? People can’t stand to see the Palins happy. If you are a Republican, ask yourself this: Does it bother you to see Malia and Sasha Obama smiling? Or, would you take joy in bad things happening to Chelsea Clinton?

Why, then, are Democrats so delighted at anything they can do to cause misery for the Palin family?

I blame Andrew Sullivan, who has spent more than two years demonizing Sarah Palin.

Some will say it is unfair of me to blame Sullivan alone. And the Palin-haters are all about fairness, you know.

UPDATE: Hmmm. It appears that the same idea — that Palin-haters can’t stand them being happy — was recently discussed by S.E. Cupp, but may have first occurred to Professor William Jacobson in October 31, 2008: Why Do They Hate Sarah Palin So Much? She’s Happy.

‘By Any Means Necessary’

“Willow Palin is a 16 year old girl who, like all 16 year olds is going to make mistakes and say things she shouldn’t have. . . . Apparently, it’s only a ‘homophobic slur’ when it comes from the daughter of a conservative female leader. Make no mistake; this is all about destroying Sarah Palin by any means necessary.”
— Tammy Bruce, GOProud

Having begun to address the matter of Andrew Sullivan, let me turn to the important question of motive.

Why did Sully become so obsessed with destroying Sarah Palin that, within four days of her announcement as John McCain’s 2008 running mate, he posted nine times in regard to the Trig Truther rumors? Occam’s Razor directs us to the simplest answer: Pure politics.

What you see here is the chart of the Real Clear Politics poll average for the 2008 presidential campaign, showing that by Sept. 8, the McCain-Palin ticket was leading by 2.9 points — with the RCP average for the Republican ticket (48.3) on that date being the highest poll showing of McCain vs. Obama at any point during the entire campaign, even before either candidate had won his party’s nomination.

When Sarah Palin’s name was announced as the GOP vice-presidential candidate on Sept. 29, Andrew Sullivan saw what everyone saw: Here was a potential game-changer.

John McCain was the worst Republican presidential nominee since Gerald Ford. Old, short, bald and grumpy are not high on the list of characteristics any consultant would cherish a presidential candidate.

Sure, he had that Vietnam POW thing going for him, but (a) that was more than three decades ago, (b) the “Republican war-hero” factor hadn’t helped Bob Dole in ’96 or Bush Sr. in ’92, (c) Bush Jr. had mopped the floor with McCain in 2000, and (d) hey, did I mention old, short, bald and grumpy?

With one decision, however, McCain changed the calculus of the campaign. Everybody understood the dynamic: In defeating Hillary Clinton, Team Obama had alienated many independent women voters — and not a small number of loyal Democrats who continued to oppose Obama under the PUMA (“Party Unity, My Ass”) banner.

One of those PUMAs was my lesbian friend Cynthia Yockey. Her last hope as a feminist Democrat was that Obama would pick Hillary as his running mate. Instead, the nod went to Joe Biden and when McCain picked Palin — well, Sarah had Cynthia at “hello.”

And, mirable dictu, the same was true of the Republican Party’s conservative base, which had hitherto been less than enthusiastic. As I reported, Sarah Palin instantly became the “Sweetheart of the Heartland“:

LEBANON, Ohio — Janet Stefanopoulos drove 30 miles from Cincinnati to attend yesterday’s presidential campaign rally here, but it wasn’t the man at the top of the ticket that brought her out on a rainy Tuesday morning.
“I want to see Sarah Palin,” said Stefanopoulos, a retired nurse and staunch Republican who had favored Fred Thompson in the primaries. “I was a lukewarm McCain [supporter] until he picked her. I mean, I would have voted for him, but now I’m fired up. . . . She is what I would like my children to be.” . . .

Oh, yes, I remember the cheering crowd of thousands who turned out on that rainy Tuesday morning in Ohio:



Sarah Palin was a role model who inspired the dreams of millions and, by the week after the Republican convention, she had boosted the GOP ticket to a 10-point advantage among like voters in a Gallup poll.

Sarah Palin’s potential to change the dynamic of the 2008 campaign was, as I say, obvious from the moment her name was announced.  And so, for purely political reasons, Andrew Sullivan set out to destroy her.

“By Any Means Necessary.”

UPDATE: It’s those “bitter clingers,” you see, who are shooting up their TV sets in Wisconsin. But Jimmie Bise makes an important point here:

I mean, he could have gotten just as enraged had be seen any spoiled politician’s daughter who had wrangled her way into a position that she would never have earned save for her last name.

Hmmmmm. Who could he mean by that? Never mind. Fingers Malloy attempts an intervention:

Listen, this whole Bristol Palin on Dancing with the Stars thing – yeah we need to talk.

(Via Amato Activists Daily.)

Andrew Sullivan: Does the Phrase ‘And the Horse You Rode In On’ Ring a Bell?

“Here’s Robert Stacy McCain rushing to Willow’s defense . . . Maybe I should defer to McCain as an arbiter of homophobia. He’s one of the vilest bigots on the web.”
— Andrew Sullivan

OK, post-election flame-wars being The New Black, I’m happy at last to have an antagonist who (a) hates all Republicans and (b) throws some pretty hefty traffic. Because when I completely dismantle someone, it’s nice to have the largest possible audience for the show.

My plan for the afternoon had been to compose a thousand-word article about the defeat of the Paycheck Fairness Act, but if I have to lay that aside to write an analysis of Patient Zero in the Palin Derangement Syndrome pandemic, so be it.

Pop some popcorn, hit the tip jar, and check back later.

UPDATE: Let’s begin at the most obvious place — Sullivan’s role as Trig Truther-in-Chief.

It was Sully who, almost from the moment that Sarah Palin was announced as John McCain’s 2008 running mate, lent aid and comfort to the demented loons who claimed without any credible evidence that Palin’s infant son Trig was not actually her son.

Even after every reputable journalist in America had denounced this line of inquiry as misguided, counterfactual and insultingly sexist, Sully persisted until at last — in November 2009 — there arose a new voice in the argument:

To this day, I have no idea who was behind the “Sarah Palin’s Uterus” blog, but it was a perfect distillation of Sullivan’s pathological obsession, which led me to dub him “Dr. Andrew Sullivan, M.D., OB-GYN, excecutive director of research at the Atlantic Memorial Center for Republican Obstetric Investigation.”

Although it has made him an object of ridicule, still he continues to foment the notion that there must be some dark right-wing secret hidden in the medical records relating to “Palin’s bizarre story about her fifth campaign prop.”

“Legitimate questions of fact! Relevant questions!”

How, then, does Sullivan consider himself such a mental health expert that he is fit to diagnose me as suffering from a “phobia”?

UPDATE II: Sully’s obsession has no legitimate basis as journalism, as my friend (and occasional Daily Dish guest-blogger) Dave Weigel said:

Were Sarah Palin to become president and everything the Trig Truthers believed to be proven right, it wouldn’t matter at all. But they won’t be proven right. All of the evidence indicates that Trig Palin is Sarah’s son, and none of it suggests otherwise. I paid close enough attention to this in 2008, and realized pretty quickly that the countervailing theories made no sense.

UPDATE III: Excuse the long delay in continuing this post, as my crusty laptop overheated and shut down while I was researching the history of Sullivan’s obstetric obsession. So far, I’ve arrived at Sept. 3, 2008:

Brandishing a child with Down Syndrome as a campaign statement is daring the press to ask questions about him.

What I’m seaching for, BTW, is exactly when Sully began using his perch at The Atlantic Monthly to throw traffic at other Trig-Truther blogs, giving them and their wild-goose-chase theories a prominence they otherwise would have never had. Please link examples in the comments while I keep searching.

Permit me here to point out that I’ve actually met Trig Palin — even held the romping tyke in my arms for a moment or two — and watched Trig’s father read him a story. As a husband and father myself (with teenage twin boys who might occasionally use impolite language), there is a certain element of personal-is-political subjectivity involved.

Belated thanks to Jeff in Walla Walla and to Suzy and Joe in Olympia (mmmm, Coronas) for having hit the tip jar.

UPDATE IV: Well, that didn’t take long! From Day One, Sullivan was happy to link any Trig Truther anywhere, including an almost-instantly-deleted Daily Kos diary by “Inky 99” entitled, “Sarah Palin Is NOT the Mother.”

As regards those ugly rumors that “Inky 99” is actually Andrew Sullivan, “Inky 99” has been unavailable for comment since that Glenn Beck interview.

UPDATE V: Seriously, from Day One, Sully interpreted Trig strictly as part Sarah Palin’s appeal as a “Christianist” symbol:

“Now I understand: she’s a pro-life mother of a Down Syndrome child.”

UPDATE VI: From Day One, I repeat, including this post (Aug. 31, 2008) entitled “Things That Make You Go Hmmm“:

What was it that aroused suspicion about that photo? That Palin’s oldest child was holding her youngest child while Mom was on stage? Thinking back on all the times my oldest daughter (now 21) held our youngest (now 7) when my wife was too busy to hold the baby, would that also “make you go hmmm”? But let’s look at Andrew in “just asking questions” mode on Aug. 31, 2008:

Where has Bristol Palin . . . been for the past year? Has she been attending high school? Or was she absent because of infectious mononucleosis for between five and eight months, as is now being reported on the Internet?
Why would a 43 year old woman, on her fifth pregnancy, with a Down Syndrome child, after her amniotic fluid has started to leak, not go to the nearest hospital immediately, even if she was in Texas for a speech?
Why would she not only not go to the hospital in Texas, but take an eight-hour plane flight to Seattle and then Anchorage?
Why would she choose to deliver the baby not in the nearest major facility in Anchorage but at a much smaller hospital near her home-town?
Why did the flight attendants on the trip home say she bore no signs of being pregnant?

The way he posted these questions suggests that Sullivan received them in an e-mail, although he has never said from whom, but he himself was the source for this part:

 [T]he rumors buzzing across the Internets and the press corps are unfounded and unseemly. 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. But 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.

That link is, of course, to the subsequently deleted “Inky 99” post at DKos — which was, so far as I know, the only “buzzing” Sully could have linked at that point — and yet we see that, beginning on Aug. 31, 2008, Sullivan demanded that the McCain campaign provide witnesses and release Palin’s obstetric records to disprove those rumors.

UPDATE VII: Remember that the latest dust-up began with 16-year-old Willow Palin calling one of her older sister’s DWTS detractors “faggot” and “gay.”

To which I replied, “This is not ‘homophobia.’ This is just how teenagers insult each other” — an objective fact, which I confirmed with Mrs. Other McCain, who I would certainly hope is more of an authority on the behavior of contemporary teenagers than Andrew Sullivan is.

We are not debating how teenagers should behave — no one supposes that Sarah Palin approves of her daughters using foul language and puerile insults — but rather discussing how teenagers commonly do behave, and asking whether the phrase “homophobic” may rightly be applied to an angry 16-year-old girl’s use of the schoolyard slurs “gay” and “faggot.”

What about “baldy” or “four-eyes” or “creep” or “psycho”? Are such insults evidence of hate and phobia and whatever “isms” they might be said to represent?

Let me ask whether calling Sarah Palin “a pathological liar [who] simply cannot be trusted to tell the truth about herself” might be considered an insult, evidence that the person who used such a phrase was a “bigot”?

And what about “Ewok”? Is Ace of Spades insulted when someone refers to him as a hairy diminutive creature who dwells on the forest moon of Endor? Let’s ask Ace’s opinion:

Give It. A F—ing Rest. You F—ing. Child-Hating. Vagina-Envy. Brain-Detrioriated. Bi-Polar. Borderline Personality Disorder. Steroid-Raging. Degenerate. Psychopath.

Uh, maybe I linked the wrong post there. Definitely NSFW. IYKWIMAITYD.

UPDATE VIII: Thanks for the linkage from Republican Redefined and Gay Patriot.

UPDATE IX: While researching — I’m not through with you yet, Sully — I stumbled onto my American Spectator article “Punished With a Baby,” from Sept. 2, 2008:

Strange as it seems in this time of war and economic crisis, the tale of a pregnant teenager could determine who will be the next Leader of the Free World. Surely this wasn’t what feminists meant when they coined the phrase “the personal is political.” Or was it?

Thanks to Susan in New York for making my afternoon labor more lucrative than the article I had previously planned to write today. A few more tip-jar hits like that, and maybe I’ll be able to get the radiator in the Pontiac fixed.

UPDATE X: Ah, found what I was looking for. My blog post of Sept. 1, 2008:

Sully repeatedly gave vent to, and defended, the horrid and baseless speculation — apparently originating with a DKos vermin — that Sarah Palin’s fifth child, Trig, was actually her grandchild, having been born to Palin’s teenage daughter, Bristol. (See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.)

So, in no fewer than nine blog entries, this contributor to The Atlantic Monthly pumped oxygen into one of the most bizarre and disgusting conspiracy theories ever to emerge from the fetid swamps of the Leftosphere.

Sullivan’s relentless promotion of this sick rumor prompted Ace to organize “heavy hitters” into a boycott:

Let’s see a brain scan, buddy. Let’s get some answers to these questions. Medical f—ing answers. 

Read the whole thing. (Dang, Ace, I’d forgotten how good that post was. As for why I’ve linked Sully here: I wasn’t a “heavy hitter,” so I never got your e-mail.)

UPDATE XI: Rachelle Friberg is one of those Bristol Palin fans who are allegedly undermining the precious “integrity” of Dancing With the Stars, thereby causing people to engage in insane acts of violence.

Bristol: Another Palin.

With a Uterus.

Causing Insanity!

UPDATE XII: “By Any Means Necessary.”

‘A Deliberate . . . Systemic Campaign to Kill Obama’s Presidency in Its Crib’

Hey, did anybody else ever notice that Andrew Sullivan has a tendency to engage in hyperbole?

What Sully portrays as a malign plot, I think most people call . . . politics.

Or in Jennifer Rubin’s elegantly simple formula, “There is no getting around it. The opposition party must oppose.”

For an Obamaphile like Sullivan, the explanation for the Democratic wipeout of Nov. 2 cannot be that Obama’s policies are unpopular or that Obama’s policies failed. Such an explanation would be both obvious and simple and, if you want an explanation like that, you don’t need a British emigré intellectual with a Harvard Ph.D. to give it to you.

Furthermore, to say that Obama was responsible for his own failures would offer no opportunity to denounce conservatives, which is all that Andrew Sullivan ever does anymore.

Ergo, the Sullivanesque explanation must (a) require the skills of an intellectual, and (b) involve accusations of right-wing perfidy. So he gins up the startling claim that Obama’s failure was caused by various conservative intellectuals (Jonah Goldberg, Dinesh D’Souza and Charles Krauthammer among them) who portrayed Obama as “an anti-American hyper-leftist, spending the US into oblivion.”

Any such portrayal, Sullivan says, is The Big Lie.

Because . . . Obama is a thrifty patriotic centrist?

Is it just me, or is Sullivan’s frothing madness more enjoyable to watch now that Democrats have been kicked to the curb?

Incentivizing the Anti-Palin Slime

Chris Bodenner at The Atlantic Monthly:

The link is to Jesse Griffin of the Immoral Minority blog, who perpetrated the Palin divorce hoax of August 2009, and who was forced to resign as a kindergarten aide at an Anchorage elementary school after his porn-blogging habits were exposed.

Griffin, Dennis Zaki, Jeanne Devon — when it comes to sliming the Palins, the Atlantic Monthly has no discernible journalistic standards. Any “source” is acceptable, so long as the source is anti-Palin.

UPDATE: Hmmmm.

Remember All Those Nice Things I Said About Dave Weigel?

Yeah, I’m looking like a total chump, now that he’s guestblogging for Andrew Sullivan.

No word on what Weigel will have to add to the usual Sarah Palin obstetric conspiracy theories and Israel-bashing at Sully’s.

What next for Weigel? Guest-hosting the Alex Jones show?

UPDATE: Note Ace’s reaction, including the not-gonna-link-Sully-no-matter-what standard. Very few sites qualify for that extreme ostracism by Ace. Meanwhile, Weigel explains his Sully past. NTTAWWT.

What If Glenn Beck Said This?

“I think of Obama’s politics as entirely cultural. It is about creating the new America, epitomized by Barack Obama’s racially mixed radicalism. It is about banishing the Bush-Cheney years by celebrating the man hired to destroy the Constitution. It is about dreaming of a new America — the America transformed by the New Deal, by mass immigration of non-whites, by the civil rights era, by Darwinist hostility to religion. It is a kind of new fundamentalism — animated by no policies that one can determine (has anyone ever heard Obama cite how he would balance the budget?). And yet it’s very potent, because it makes up for its minority status with a ferocity and passion that infuses all truly radical populist movements and can swamp lethargic majorities when necessary.”

Well, of course, his habit of imputing radicalism and secret motives to the Left — “I’m going to expose their hidden agenda!” — is why Glenn Beck is often dismissed as a kooky conspiracy theorist. Yet the quote above is not by Beck, but merely a strategically edited version of what Andrew Sullivan actually wrote at The Atlantic Monthly:

“I think of Palin’s politics as entirely cultural. It is about resisting the new America, epitomized by Barack Obama’s racially mixed pragmatism. It is about banishing the Bush-Cheney years by demonizing the man hired to clean up the appalling mess. It is about dreaming of an old America  – the America before the New Deal, before mass immigration of non-whites, before the civil rights era, before Darwin up-ended fundamentalist nuttery. It is a kind of new fundamentalism – animated by no policies that one can determine (has anyone ever heard Palin cite how she would balance the budget?). And yet it’s very potent, because it makes up for its minority status with a ferocity and passion that infuses all truly radical populist movements and can swamp lethargic majorities when necessary.”

Andrew Sullivan is permitted to say anything he wants about Sarah Palin and her supporters, including insinuations of racism, and his editors at the Atlantic simply don’t care.

Why? Because Anti-Palinism sells.

Liberals gobble up Sullivan’s anti-Palin rants and come back for more. It doesn’t matter whether Sullivan is slamming her for “fundamentalist nuttery” or pretending to have secret knowledge of her obstetric history. The editors at the Atlantic would give Alex Jones his own blog if he’d start pushing Palin conspiracies instead of 9/11 conspiracies.

And if you point out that Sully’s treatment of Palin is far more irresponsible than anything Glenn Beck ever said about Barack Obama?

Crickets chirping.