Andrew Sullivan Showers Palin with “Compliments”
Andrew Sullivan is handing out compliments to Sarah Palin, as part of the New Civility and what he calls “generous anger”:
And when there are individuals in politics you have learned to distrust or oppose, it is always helpful from time to time to add a genuine compliment, not for the sake of it, or for credentializing, but because there are very few people who have no redeeming features and noting them is only fair.
How about my long treatment of Sarah Palin? Here, there is no conceivable way in which, in my judgment, her presence on the national stage can improve our discourse, help solve our problems or improve public life. But that does not forbid one from noting the great example she has shown in rearing a child with Down Syndrome, whatever his provenance, or noting her effectiveness as a demagogue, or from admiring her father’s genuineness or her skill in exploiting new media.
Awwww. That’s kinda sweet. I think it’s time we on the right return the compliment.
Here goes . . .
Ahem . . .
There is no conceivable way in which, in my judgment, Andrew Sullivan’s presence on the Internet can serve any useful purpose. But that does not forbid one from noting the great example he has shown in rising above the revelation that he sought gay sex on the Internet after condemning that exact behavior in others. That he has managed to maintain an audience despite such stunning hypocrisy — coupled with his demented and protracted investigation into Sarah Palin’s uterus — is a testament to Andrew’s skill in identifying and exploiting suckers with rank demagoguery.
“I offer no apologies or regrets for persistence.”
Here endeth the compliments.
UPDATE: Karl has much more in comments about other things Sullivan has managed to rise above. And (h/t dana) iowahawk has more on the Juicebox Mafia as CSI — featuring “Chief Forensic Gynecologist Andrew Sullivan.”
I usually don’t comment on posts about Andrew Sullivan.
Dammit, nevermind.
Ag80 (e03e7a) — 1/18/2011 @ 9:06 pmAt least you did not mention milky loads, so you’ve got that going for you.
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/18/2011 @ 9:14 pmHe’s lower than dirt.
Bristol was giving birth so soon after that it’s not possible she was the parent of both. Not to mention there was no evidence Sarah wasn’t the parent. Not to mention this is completely ridiculous paranoia. Oh never mind… why would I even respond…
He’s lower than dirt.
People: don’t look into the “milky loads” reference. It’s not worth it. Sullivan is a degenerate… this has nothing to do with his homosexuality. You don’t need to know more.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/18/2011 @ 9:18 pmUgh. Andrew Sullivan Showers… Now that’s just flat out wrong.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 1/18/2011 @ 9:21 pmBravo, Patterico. I think that giving Sullivan the same “false compliment”/”damned by faint praise” approach is fine. I just wish you had his soapbox to do it.
The vexing part is how clever he considers himself to be; kind of like the “I’m sorry if you were insulted by my statement” approach.
Now, sadly, you will have to wash your hands metaphorically. The man is psychologically diseased.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 1/18/2011 @ 9:22 pmDana: only if he showers in psychological Purell.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 1/18/2011 @ 9:23 pmSullivan has really wrecked the brand of the publication that Greeley built, sadly it has been moderately successful in that effort. With other
narciso (6075d0) — 1/18/2011 @ 9:24 pmcommentators striving to reach his level of shrill, ie; Jeff Goldberg going after Beck, for
invetigating Soros and company, only for being Jewish.
The only way he could have typed that is if he gets wife reception in Sarah’s uterus.
JD (d4bbf1) — 1/18/2011 @ 9:33 pmWife = wifi
JD (d4bbf1) — 1/18/2011 @ 9:33 pmI think Pat does not give Sullivan nearly enough credit. Andrew has had to rise above much more than RAWMUSCGLUTES-gate. Consider this TIME magazine report at the end of his tenure at TNR:
And yet TIME later brought his blog into their fold, even considering the Elizabeth McCaughey piece for which Sullivan has since apologized.
But wait… there’s more! Consider Sullivan’s ejection from his gig with the New York Times magazine:
How can one do anything but marvel at a man who takes credit for those discredited pieces — and the McCaughey piece he apologized for — in his official bio? Combined with his floating of various conspiracy theories at TIME and Trig Trutherism at The Atlantic, has any man managed to stain so many institutions of liberal journalism in a lifetime? Most would have said it couldn’t be done, but Andrew Sullivan’s career stands as one of the most searing indictments of the corruption and who-you-know rot of establishment journalism yet produced. He deserves an ovation.
Karl (928df3) — 1/18/2011 @ 9:34 pmI there are many at the Atlantic who are just so embarrassed by this white hot mess of a moron. I know it.
Topsecretk9 (ab69ad) — 1/18/2011 @ 9:37 pm…or as Iowahawk introduces him as in today’s CSI:Tuscon piece, CHIEF FORENSIC GYNECOLOGIST ANDREW SULLIVAN
But that does not forbid one from noting the great example she has shown in rearing a child with Down Syndrome, whatever his provenance,
On a serious note, I sincerely hope Sullivan never, ever has a child via any means. No child deserves to live with someone who is this vile, mean, and inappropriate. How dare he.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 1/18/2011 @ 9:39 pmNice post there, Karl. Wasn’t Sullivan also at the helm for the Stephen Glass stuff as well?
Topsecretk9 (ab69ad) — 1/18/2011 @ 9:44 pmKarl really knows how to indict a man. Jeez.
Maybe Andrew Sullivan is simply out to prove a point about the media? Could someone really be that bad on accident?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/18/2011 @ 9:44 pmI think that could happen by budding, Dana. Or binary fission.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 1/18/2011 @ 9:44 pmKarl: your comment is linked in the update.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/18/2011 @ 9:44 pmHA!
Topsecretk9 (ab69ad) — 1/18/2011 @ 9:46 pmBravo Karl.
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/18/2011 @ 9:46 pmWell written, Patterico. One of the best exhibitions of Sully take down I’ve read in a while.
Clavius (b00448) — 1/18/2011 @ 9:47 pmLeave it to Andrew, to apologize for the wrong thing, the Alliances and the fines and regulations in ‘No Exit’ were much like the exchanges in this current bill. The difference is 16 years ago, the ruling class, had if not a healthy respect, a fear of what unpopular legislation would do them, they don’t have that anymore, hence that bogus Op Ed in the Journal
narciso (6075d0) — 1/18/2011 @ 9:52 pmWho is
bob (4d0338) — 1/18/2011 @ 9:54 pmJohn GaltAndrew Sullivan? Seriously.Topsecretk9 (13),
After the Ruth Shalit debacle, Sullivan decide to hire two fact-checkers, one of whom was… Stephen Glass!
In fairness, Glass actually had a rep for being a total PitA as a fact-checker, and IIRC, he didn’t start writing fiction until after Sullivan left. That’s why I left him out of my comment… which I suspect is more than Sullivan would do if the shoe was on the other foot.
Karl (928df3) — 1/18/2011 @ 9:57 pmNice to see you, Clavius!
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/18/2011 @ 10:00 pm_________________________________________
The man is psychologically diseased.
And, of course, physically too. Sullivan’s penchant for promiscuous male-on-male activity apparently resulted in his being infected with HIV awhile back.
I read a few months ago that even in the ribald, anything-goes world of LA adult entertainment that female porn stars try to avoid doing scenes with male bi- and homosexuals. IOW, such guys are perceived as being walking petri dishes, full of STDs from A to Z. Guys in general who are not too different from Andrew Sullivan.
I think all that exposure to lousy odors (ie, oral-anal-genital contact) and microbe contamination has destroyed Andrew Sullivan’s equilibrium.
Mark (411533) — 1/18/2011 @ 10:04 pmTMI, Mark, I don’t want to know what he does in his spare time, that was Goldstein, behind that piece. We know from the perusal of the Journolist
narciso (6075d0) — 1/18/2011 @ 10:14 pmarchives, that many of them, were similarly’confused’ about a very basic fact, at least at the outset, then they just chose to lie about it.
Mark, it’s true that Sullivan is a great argument against being promiscuous. I don’t need the word “odors” to come up when that’s discussed, though. BTW, good to see you around.
I’ve always thought that marriage is great for society (beyond the great advantage of stable homes) is that it cuts down on promiscuity. That’s my argument for gay marriage, or something like marriage by another name. I think Andrew Sullivan’s position is that such a construct shouldn’t come with any kind of exclusivity ideal. Which is pretty damn stupid.
I don’t care to speculate on if he’s got HIV dementia, but he does seem to be very selfish and demented.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/18/2011 @ 10:24 pmI don’t know that I would blame the virus for Sullivan’s crazee. Maybe. And honestly, I hope not: AIDS dementia is a terrible thing. I would rather he be just nuttier than squirrel poop, since there is a possibility he might recover and quit acting bizarre.
And that isn’t about partisanship; his weird gynecological fascination with Palin is creepy.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 1/18/2011 @ 10:33 pmThe fact that Sullivan, a disease-ridden, pot-smoking, professional blowhard, who has never contributed anything of use to society (and never will), is even allowed to enter the United States shows what a joke the law is.
The fact that anyone pays this retard any mind whatsoever shows what a joke humanity is.
Dave Surls (512ef4) — 1/18/2011 @ 10:37 pm_______________________________________
That’s my argument for gay marriage
Dustin, I think it’s naive to assume that an extreme form of male sexuality in general — which is what male homosexuality is in particular — and the symbolic/legal trappings of monogamy (via the framework of marriage) modify one another. If anything, a greater dumbing down and further desensitization of society’s perceptions of homosexuality will merely increase the nonchalance of same-sex activity among certain males.
That runs counter to today’s society moving in the direction of treating health and healthy living as a new religion. Therefore, male homosexuality should be discouraged. The reason? When you come right down to it, the “TMI” nature of oral-anal-genital contact in tandem with innate male promiscuity are intrinsically unhealthy. IOW, a ready-made way to spread STDs.
Mark (411533) — 1/18/2011 @ 10:48 pmNo, Simon, you’re right. It’s obviously something more than just some virus that is Andrew’s problem. Hell, Karl’s comment really sheds light on how lame Andrew’s been for ages.
I think it’s the other way around. He behaved in a short sighted way, and that’s why he’s a demagogue and also why his sexual practices were unwise.
If it really is just AIDS dementia that made him this ridiculous, then I have nothing but sympathy for him.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/18/2011 @ 10:49 pmMark, that’s a complex argument, but there is some truth to it. An awful lot of the people arguing for Gay Marriage, also want it to be non-exclusive. Which I think is an obvious degradation of the meaning of marriage.
In my book, marriage is about family, first and foremost. I don’t care to dig into how other people arrange their lives, but that’s what it is to me.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/18/2011 @ 10:50 pmDon’t miss that Iowahawk piece — CSI Tucson may very well find the smoking Fallopian Tube.
Harry Bergeron (dd1f79) — 1/18/2011 @ 11:11 pm__________________________________________
I don’t need the word “odors” to come up when that’s discussed, though.
Sorry, Dustin, but considering that the top leader of China is now visiting this country, and in light of the private behavior of people like Andrew Sullivan, along with one reason why I do find same-sex behavior among males to be grotesque, I can’t help but bring some levity to this subject by posting:
Mark (411533) — 1/18/2011 @ 11:12 pmI wish adultery was a crime (if it’s on the books in some places, then I mean I wish it were enforced). Perhaps some say this is a privacy violation, but I wouldn’t want the 4th amendment to be broken in investigating this offense, and I wouldn’t want it to be a felony.
If it were, I think gay marriage would be incredibly good for society. I don’t find gay sex any more understandable than Mark does, but I see a lot of good in exclusive sexual relationships that last a lifetime. It’s similar to the argument for a seatbelt.
And I do realize just how completely out of step I am with the rest of society on this.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/18/2011 @ 11:18 pmYou’re seriously creeping me out,Mark, don’t you know you can’t be that judgemental, wasn’t that
narciso (6075d0) — 1/18/2011 @ 11:19 pmthe gist of almost all your commentaries this fall.
11. I there are many at the Atlantic who are just so embarrassed by this white hot mess of a moron. I know it.
Comment by Topsecretk9 — 1/18/2011 @ 9:37 pm
— Don’t say “white hot mess” in connection with Andrew Sullivan!
Icy Texan (ec15e0) — 1/19/2011 @ 12:26 amtwo things.
a) Ewww. Way too many ways to take that…
b) Hey, he doesn’t like Krugman. He can’t be ALL bad…
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 1/19/2011 @ 12:43 amScott, did you want to be liked by Sullivan?
Who knew that you would want to have something in common with Krugman!
Simon Jester (59b811) — 1/19/2011 @ 12:56 amI think you read that wrong, bubba…
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 1/19/2011 @ 1:03 amOh, not at all: I don’t want to be liked by Andrew Sullivan at all. The fact that he doesn’t like Krugman is a point his favor.
Even if Krugman is a glandular nattering Ewok.
Simon Jester (59b811) — 1/19/2011 @ 1:08 amI think we all know what kind (or ‘color’) of “shower” Sully gave Palin.
Icy Texan (ec15e0) — 1/19/2011 @ 1:24 amIt’s amazing people are still talking about Palin when her approval is half that of Obama’s. How about that Obama approval rating? It’s amazing how stable Obama’s poll numbers have been in the face of the Tea Bircher birther hate speak. However, on the theme of ‘telling you what you want to hear,’ some pollsters are a proven fraud and are demonstrably inaccurate.
The fact is, Obama is doing better than Reagan at this point in his presidency. Way better. Obama’s 53 percent approval rating at the start of his third year in office is six points better than Bill Clinton’s at the same time in his presidency and 16 points better than Ronald Reagan’s figure in January of 1983.
Scott (c660ef) — 1/19/2011 @ 1:54 amThe only thing Andrew Sullivan has ever “managed to rise above” is the towel boy at the YMCA.
Icy Texan (ec15e0) — 1/19/2011 @ 2:00 amScott seems to be lost. Can anyone redirect him to the thread he’s looking for?
Icy Texan (ec15e0) — 1/19/2011 @ 2:02 amOh, Icy Texan, I imagine it is one of the Usual Suspects, with anonymizers and proxies and so forth. Odd people.
Simon Jester (59b811) — 1/19/2011 @ 2:33 amWell it’s always nice to drop a load of appropriate comments on Andrew Sullivan. He is one of those strange characters that the American Punditry Scene produces from time to time.
Mike Myers (0e06a9) — 1/19/2011 @ 3:13 am“Scott seems to be lost. Can anyone redirect him to the thread he’s looking for?”
Yeah, it’s over at the Daily Kos.
Dave Surls (512ef4) — 1/19/2011 @ 3:48 amLet’s not forget Sullivan’s impressive con-artist skills:
http://michellemalkin.com/2004/07/26/sullivans-gold-plated-bandwidth/
J (d4b3dc) — 1/19/2011 @ 4:32 am“The fact is, Obama is doing better than Reagan at this point in his presidency.”
The fact is is that even with the media fellating him 24/7 for the past three years, Obambi’s polling numbers most closely resemble those of Jimmy “the Peanut” Carter.
That’s bad news for you libtards.
Not that this has anything to do with that disease-ridden, pile of limey pus, Andrew Sullivan, who should have been deported as an undesirable alien years ago.
Dave Surls (512ef4) — 1/19/2011 @ 4:46 am“That he has managed to maintain an audience despite such stunning hypocrisy…”
That’s what comes of teaching lefties to read.
Dave Surls (512ef4) — 1/19/2011 @ 4:57 amThere simply is no way that I’m going to read a post that has a title with “Andrew Sullivan” and “showers” in it.
Nope.
No way.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/19/2011 @ 5:31 amAny discussion of Sullivan’s continued employment is incomplete without mentioning his Drudge link. He’s got a front page permanent link. That’s worth maybe 300K hits a day, easy.
The Atlantic badly needs those hits.
S. Weasel (e09a55) — 1/19/2011 @ 6:11 amI used to actually read his blog once, about seven years ago. When he bleated about needing money or else he’d have to shut it all down, his loyal readership responded, giving him somewhere in the neighborhood of over $150K (!). To which shortly afterwards Sully promptly said he was going on a sabbatical and still taking the blog down. After much outrage, he relented and kept the blog going, but I checked out after that fiasco – something very wrong with that kind of behavior.
Dmac (498ece) — 1/19/2011 @ 7:51 amWhen is his deportation date?
PatAZ (537b43) — 1/19/2011 @ 8:38 amDoes AS still go on about his “Christianism” delusion? Or has he moved on to new idées fixes?
gp (72be5d) — 1/19/2011 @ 8:49 amAlso, it should not be held against Sullivan that he received preferential treatment from the U.S. Attorney’s office when they declined to prosecute him for possession of marijuana on National Park Service property. He had no control over that decision.
Joshua (9ede0e) — 1/19/2011 @ 9:53 amIs the legal definition of malice ever met when it comes to libel/slander of a public figure?
Sullivan has such an obvious case of malice against the Palin’s it seems like if one of them doesn’t have a case then why even have the malice exception at all? Sullivan has accused Todd Palin of incest with his daughter Bristol, which produced a Down Syndrome child that Sarah is raising as her own child with Todd. He has kept up this hateful smear for over two years.
I guess I don’t want to know what real malice is if that doesn’t qualify.
Jaynie59 (f9bb51) — 1/19/2011 @ 11:19 amJaynie, I’ve never liked NY v Sullivan. I agree that his malice is easy to see, however I also notice he’s careful not to directly say what he’s saying. “Whatever his provenance” is not enough of a statement to sue over.
Andrew knows he can’t back up his claims, and the way he sheepishly expresses his craziness is great evidence. He’s never one to mince words like that, unless he knows he’s wrong.
Spoken like someone who doesn’t care about their country. There’s more to being President than poll numbers. Compare Reagan’s first two years with Obamas. We had a man turn this nation’s attitude back towards hope, lead a recovery, stare down Iran, aid freedom fighters, and be a real leader who won the support of almost all states. Obama, on the other hand, polls well for personal approval.
On issues, Obama is sunk, even in your vaunted polls. Bash Rasmussen all day, but they underestimate Republican chances. Just look at their 2010 predictions (30 seat turnover).
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/19/2011 @ 11:57 am_______________________________________
Mark, don’t you know you can’t be that judgemental, wasn’t that the gist of almost all your commentaries this fall.
Huh? You must have me confused with someone else. The very concept of being judgmental (even the word “judgmental” itself) and frowning upon that type of response — unless, of course, conservatives are the ones being judged — is generally a thing of the left.
Mark (411533) — 1/19/2011 @ 5:12 pmAndrew Sullivan is a better man here then most of the repubs right now. At least he’s calling her effective. Your republican party is 1/2 step away from returning us to the “stupid” meme. Sullivan’s not pulling support from SP. Your party is. It seems the SP supporters are going to take this lying down. Keep pointing to the inconsequential left.
Aaron (c75015) — 1/19/2011 @ 9:18 pmOK… you’re saying it’s on the right to support Palin, and we shouldn’t worry about the nuts on the left demonizing her.
But don’t you mean that we should support Palin by criticizing the nuts on the left who demonize her?
I’m not sure what you mean by lying down, or what you advocate doing.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/19/2011 @ 9:23 pm“Andrew Sullivan is a better man here then most of the repubs right now.”
Give me a break. Sullivan is an addled man-whore with no consistent philosophy willing to say anything to get attention.
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/19/2011 @ 9:41 pmDustin
I’m not sure what I’m advocating. I’m less a leader the a lover.
I’m just saying the action isn’t with Sullivan. He at least is giving the women some “due”. If you haven’t noticed yet, the left doesn’t have to do much these past few days to smear her. The right is doing a much better job at “putting her in her place”. No ones opinion is moved by what Sullivan says.
But mostly what I’m saying is Sullivan doesn’t say she needs to “study up” and “be more careful when she speaks”. Sullivan sees her as an effective and scary opponent. Good for Sullivan. I like a man who isn’t darting in and out of the shadows.
Aaron (c75015) — 1/19/2011 @ 10:11 pmAaron, I suspect you aren’t familiar with Andrew Sullivan. He doesn’t give Palin any credit whatsoever. His ‘credit’ to her is that she’s effective at bad things. He absolutely does think she is ignorant and worse, but doesn’t recommend she study because he’s more worried about her conspiracy to fake being Trig’s mother.
I am really amused with those who are foolish enough to kick Palin when she’s down, such as Newt (who said she should be more careful about her speech). It’s good to know who’s rooting for you when you’re down.
Palin is very difficult to discuss these days because everything is loaded. But Sullivan is probably the harshest Palin critique in the planet. Murkowski is practically Palin’s blood-sister by comparison. He’s a lunatic.
I do think the GOP should be focused on the issues, such as their Obamacare repeal vote, economic recovery, START, etc, and less focused on personalities.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/19/2011 @ 10:16 pmBTW, I think Palin gets this. I don’t think she wanted to make even her defense about herself, which is why she barely mentions herself in it, speaking about freedom instead.
I think Palin’s all about dealing with issues, and the left would very much like to make this next year about dividing into factions of Republicans, clamoring for the 2012 nomination. Let’s ignore that. Palin’s fate isn’t written. They’re going to hit anyone really hard in 2012. Let’s focus on the issues right now, and let the left spin its wheels attacking personalities.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/19/2011 @ 10:25 pmDustin
man your quick.
I’m referring to this post by Sullivan. I’m vaguely familiar with him but not really. I’m using this one post to make my point.
As to what the GOP should focus on; I’m not sure we have honest folk in the GOP. I’m not sure that they are not the same guys we just defeated(like the WHO song).
I’m putting more hope in getting an honest and brave figure head up there in the presidency. Someone who can whip those cynical pols into shape. As for this congress, I’m not as hopeful.
Aaron (c75015) — 1/19/2011 @ 10:32 pmI meant you type quick. no snark thee.
Aaron (c75015) — 1/19/2011 @ 10:32 pmwell don’t worry, you’re not missing much. Just realize he’s not sincere if it appears he’s trying to be generous to Palin.
I do hope we get an awesome leader in 2012, and I grant that this congress can only do so much (but then, it can only do so much damage). We’re in the beginning of a process, and the left’s only card to play is to try to divide and conquer and demonize. We actually do have some honest GOP leaders, but I see no reason to blindly put faith in any of them. Show me the work on the issues, House GOP. Palin should continue to opine on the issues, same as the other conservative pundits, and leave the left to its drama about who is evil or uncool or uncivil.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/19/2011 @ 10:37 pmDustin
here here.
good night buddy.
Aaron (c75015) — 1/19/2011 @ 10:39 pm