Today, Andrew Sullivan finally abandoned the specious rationalizations he has used to justify his morbid fixation on Sarah Palin, and revealed the very real paranoia that lies at the root of his Sarahphobia:
I fear her … She is not a tabloid story. She is a threat.
Whereas most observers take Palin’s new role at Fox as an indication that she won’t be running for political office in the near future, Sully sees it as just another step in the long march toward a fascist hillbilly dictatorship:
I do not believe that this means she is out of politics. Au contraire. FNC and the RNC are effectively the same operation … The strategy is obviously to focus entirely on the base, demonizing the president and anything he does, exploit economic malaise, and then get back to power on a wave of frightened white resentiment …
Sullivan sounds like Colonel Jack D. Ripper discussing the threat to our “precious bodily fluids.” His conspiracy theories about Palin are becoming more implausible every day, not to say unintentionally ironic:
When a politician believes she does not need to respond to the press … when the platform she has been given provides her … with a megaphone for lies, we are in trouble as a democracy.
If one replaces the “she” with a “he,” this is a pitch perfect description of Barack Obama, of whom Sullivan very much approves.  And yet he warns us of Palin’s “indifference to reality.”
UPDATE:
The Palinoia metastasizes:
Forget the RNC, Michael Steele or John Boehner. Ignore Romney.The new RNC is FNC. Roger Ailes is creating a new political entity that could redefine the right in America for a generation, and if it gets to power, will make the two terms of George W. Bush look like a golden era.
Sully’s gone completely ’round the bend.
Comments 32
Huh, looks like I beat the Sully Brigade to first post and, without their inane bleating, I can do little but agree w/ your post, Catron.
Posted 14 Jan 2010 at 11:18 am ¶Sorry to disappoint you, ECM, but you didn’t beat Sully’s wacky brigade.
So far, however, I’ve had to delete them (all but one) because of sheer craziness.
Posted 14 Jan 2010 at 12:48 pm ¶As Beck puts it “Bullcrap”
He has set the stage for Palin.
We have the opening salvo of the reluctant draftee, a female Georgette Washington who will give the power back to the people.
What Bullcrap.
Posted 14 Jan 2010 at 1:34 pm ¶Are you on meth, Catron?
Posted 14 Jan 2010 at 1:54 pm ¶Nope. Just reality. I recommendit as a palliative for Sarahphobia.
Posted 14 Jan 2010 at 1:59 pm ¶I think the FNC does want Sarah Palin in politics. Andrew is maybe being a little dramatic, but I think the fear of someone with as little intelligence as Sarah Palin being president of the US is scary. Sure, it’s happened before in Banana Republics, but Palin is completely unequiped to be president of the United States
Posted 14 Jan 2010 at 2:10 pm ¶THANK YOU FOR KEEPING THIS SITE FREE OF STUPIDITY, CATRON!
Nothing I hate more than going to a reliably conservative site and seeing some stupid libs’ opinions.
Now more than ever is the time for ideological purity.
(Sorry if I got carried away in my last comment!)
Posted 14 Jan 2010 at 2:16 pm ¶“Ideological purity”, indeed. Yes, Sully is overreacting, but he is doing so out of a sincere experience with conservatism that has transformed into something different. Is there any doubt now that Mrs. Palin is indeed an implement of the east coast conservative elite, such as Ailes, Kristol, etc.? Of course, there’s nothing wrong with making a buck, just don’t pretend it’s anything more noble than that. And I never thought Mrs. Palin was stupid or evil, just totally incurious and unserious about governing.
Posted 14 Jan 2010 at 2:35 pm ¶@common sense: perhaps the echo chamber you’re looking for is inside your own head. Why so afraid of dissent/debate?
Posted 14 Jan 2010 at 2:38 pm ¶Sarah Palin…is no George Washington.
Posted 14 Jan 2010 at 2:54 pm ¶Yeah “common sense,” nothing like going to a site that censors any dissenting viewpoint so you can be reassured that yours is the only side to any issue. Really like your “Ideologial purity” idea. Debate simply muddies the waters. God Bless America.
Posted 14 Jan 2010 at 3:01 pm ¶Just a note guys:
I don’t censor “dissent,” as the presence of your comments should verify.
I DO censor people whose comments are utterly incoherent and/or contain SERIOUS profanity.
Sadly, that accounts for well over half of the Sarahphobes who attempt to comment.
Posted 14 Jan 2010 at 3:02 pm ¶I have watched the video of the Beck-Palin “interview” twice through now, and I think I can safely say that the more you see and hear Ms. Palin, the more you realize that there really isn’t anything there.
You know, as a Democrat, I can’t really see myself ever voting for Huckabee, Romney, Pawlenty, Jindal, et al, in 2012. But to be perfectly fair about it, I would also never accuse any of them of being “unqualified” for the office. They are all intelligent, well-spoken, reasonably well-informed fellows, with a store of relevant experience engaged in the actual governance of something. I think they would all make perfectly dreadful Presidents, but they are all “qualified” for the job by virtue of their education, character, skill, and experience.
Sarah? My God.
Posted 14 Jan 2010 at 3:46 pm ¶As a conservative, I could never take a politician seriously that refuses to meet with the national press corps and hides behind the GOP mouthpiece, FOX. They didn’t press her on anything. When she makes a stand and actually reveals her view on policies, such as the economy, other than her “cut taxes and stand back and watch the economy roar back to life as it did during the Reagan era”, I’ll be more apt to take her seriously. She’s forgotten, if she ever remembered, that is, that interest rates dropping steadily helped bring the economy back but it also didn’t occur until midway through Reagan’s first term, not during his first year. And if you’re being honest, the economic situation at the beginning of 2009 was worse than in the Reagan era.
Let us be realistic here, she is out to make money for herself now. Is there anything wrong with that? No. But by the same token, she should dissolve the Alaska Fund Trust which was set up for donations for her defense fund. She can afford to pay for it herself and she’s no longer in office.
The fact that the recently revealed financial statement from SarahPAC had her giving only $10k in donations and spending almost $300k in overhead during the same time period. Does this give you confidence that she can manage anything, let alone the Presidency? Not me. The same old “we need common sense conservative solutions to our problems, not big government” is a trite phrase that needs a lot more depth to it. It sounds good to her uneducated followers. I honestly never thought I’d see the day when education was ridiculed as being “elitism”. I prefer my President and other government leaders to have the background, intelligence and knowledge that will give them the ability to make decisions that lesser educated, less intelligent people are incapable of making. I don’t admire ignorance in anyone, let alone a potential President. If that makes me one of the elitists, I’ll wear the badge proudly.
Posted 14 Jan 2010 at 4:22 pm ¶As a conservative …
If you’re going to pose as a conservative, Anne, you’ll need to stop using nutroot talking points. They’re a dead give away.
Posted 14 Jan 2010 at 4:30 pm ¶If you’re going to pose as the arbiter of BS, Catron, you should avoid rolling around in it. The smell is a dead give away.
As Steve Schmidt, former McCain Campaign Manager, said on CBS’s “60 Minutesâ€? last Sunday, “There were numerous instances that she said things that were — that were not accurate that ultimately, the campaign had to deal with and that opened the door to criticism that she was being untruthful and inaccurate. And I think that is something that continues to this day.â€? From my own personal observation going back to Palin’s very first appearances, if her lips are moving, she’s lying.
Any questions? I didn’t think so.
Posted 15 Jan 2010 at 3:57 am ¶Any questions?
Yes, Obi, I do have a question: Why is it that you Sarahphobes always accuse Palin of lying, but never provide any (documented) examples of these prevarications?
Is it because you’re just robotically repeating the BS you’ve feen fed?
Posted 15 Jan 2010 at 4:03 am ¶Document the lies, Catron? No problemo!!
_The bridge to nowhere? - Palin was FOR it BEFORE it was a political hot potato THEN she said “thanks, but no thanks”.
_Earmarks? - FOR them BEFORE she was selected VP candidate. She hired a lobbiest to bring home the bacon and he did (Lots of people do this but don’t complain about government deficits and corrupt earmarks while doing it. They just want their “share”.). Alaska received THE MOST money per capita of any state in the union from the U.S. government and that was WHILE they had a reverse income tax. Every Alaskan - including children - receive over $3000/yr. from the state from the massive stockpile of oil money. Let’s hear some more hypocritical BS about “welfare” and “government spending”. Oh, wait, you didn’t even notice the hypocricy.
_She supported the Alaskan Independence Party of which the “First Dude” was a member and for which she used her soapbox as Governor to support. Their rabid, ant-U.S. founder, Joseph Vogler, wanted Alaska out of the U.S. and famously refused to be buried on U.S. soil. He considered the John Birch Society as “liberal” (or “lubrul” as you would probably say). Palin tried to cover up her involvement by lying to the press which led to one of the famous showdowns with Steve Schmidt. He told her to basically sit down and shut up and that her lies would create a bigger problem. The so-called “liberal” press didn’t make an issue of her connection (compare that to the firestorm of ‘controversy’ ginned up by the right about the remote connection between Bill Ayers and Obama).
I could go on but don’t think anything will break through your kool-aid induced trance.
Posted 15 Jan 2010 at 6:25 pm ¶Er … Obi … I can’t help but notice that you still didn’t list any actual “lies.”
Changing positions, belonging to the Independence Party, etc. do not qualify as “lying.”
Your inability to do any better than this kinda proves my point, does it not?
Posted 15 Jan 2010 at 6:46 pm ¶I can prove it. In her “autobiography” ( I say that in quotes because according to her book, nothing has ever been her fault and no one goes throughout life without making a single mistake) she identifies Andree McLeod as part of a left-wing conspiracy loaded for bear against her. This is patently false. McLeod is and always has been a Republican and a fiscal conservative. Sarah Palin knows this because she actively supported McLeod’s runs for the Alaska state house.
Furthermore her repeated references to Mcleod, whose forebearers were Lebanese, as the “falafel lady” marks her as an racist, although I’m still out to lunch as to whether it was stupid due to the fact that the majority of Palin’s supporters are paranoid whites.
Posted 15 Jan 2010 at 7:05 pm ¶Catron: “Why is it that you Sarahphobes always accuse Palin of lying, but never provide any (documented) examples of these prevarications?”
Maybe because the news media has done so multiple times. I suggest you catch up by googling “troopergate exonated”, “fact checking Going Rogue “, “Death Panel Lie of year”. While “if her lips are moving, she’s lying.” is not fair nor true either, there are multiple documented examples of her misleading, distorting, and/or being deceptive, factually challenged.
Here’s a documented example of her lying:
From the text of the Troopergate Report:
“I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39/52/110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) provides
The legislature reaffirms that every public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust.”
Sarah Palin responding to that report:
Posted 15 Jan 2010 at 7:54 pm ¶“”So no, not having done anything wrong, and again very much appreciating being cleared of any legal wrongdoing or unethical activity at all.”
Andree McLeod, Raspy? You’re kidding, right? That wackjob is a classic stalker. She has filed at least 18 lawsuits against Palin, all of which have been thrown out of court as frivolous.
And, Mike, I (and many others) have shot down that meme about the Branchflower investigation. Here’s where the rubber hits the road in his findings:
“Governor Palin’s firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority.”
And please don’t bore me with the “Death Panel” thing. That was never meant literally (which is why she put it in quotes), and if you have to reach back for that, I’ll assume you can’t produce any actual “lies” either.
Posted 15 Jan 2010 at 8:15 pm ¶The Sarahphobes (name the last failed VP candidate who was still one of two most prominent people in politics 14 months after being defeated) despise her because she is “unqualified.” Yet they happily elected someone with even less experience simply because he speaks like they do and was constructed by the media as a progressive hero. They neither know nor care a thing about any of his pre-run credentials or accomplishments. They just KNOW he’s qualified. And really, really smart.
Matty says she’s a tool of the conservative elite. You mean like, say Krauthammer, who despises her? Noonan? Brooks? No, Matty, the conservative elite fear what she represents, the Great Unwashed realizing their country has been taken from them by elites and concentrated business interests, wrapped in parties that mouth putatively opposing ideologies, but who act to concentrate power and wealth in the same hands. They more they express their norror and contempt, the more they reinforce the backlash among the Unwashed, the more they love Sarah.
I ask again, why does anyone pay any attention to Sullivan? With his deranged obsession with Palin’s womb and his Foucaultian horro/attraction to “torture (”remember the cruelties!”) it is well known he has become a ranting loon on the level of a Pat Robertson.
Posted 15 Jan 2010 at 8:32 pm ¶Sully is to Reason what Yossarian is to Catch-22 –a poor victim caught in a closed loop; only this is of his own making.
Posted 16 Jan 2010 at 9:03 pm ¶Consider–he wants Sarah to prove that she’s not a half-wit (to prove a negative); but if she proves she’s not a half wit, she’s very clever; and if she’s very clever, AS will pooh-pooh her proof!
Is it any wonder she ignores him like he was a piece of used bumf with pooh-pooh all over it?
While I’m sure Palin isn’t perfect, if you put her beside any other democrat or republican politician she looks pretty good in comparison.
Posted 17 Jan 2010 at 6:07 pm ¶“Nothing I hate more than going to a reliably conservative site and seeing some stupid libs’ opinions.”
Posted 19 Jan 2010 at 11:19 pm ¶This quote is a symptom of the reason why I can never vote Republican again. My last red vote, Father, was in 1996.
One cannot surround themselves with themselves and be a creative and proactive force for effective public service. The intelligent and the leaders of America (take our founding fathers, for example) demand a hearty debate involving passion and respect. The Bush/Cheney model of subterfuge and lies will never fulfill America’s need for progress. Sarah who?
I’m a sarahphobe who doesn’t really care, because I’m also an obamaphobe and never thought palin was worse than obama.
They both mouth platitudes which are then passed off by their respective media allies as honest, in touch, “of the people” talk. The difference is that palin is typecast as an earthmother anti elitist, while obama is typecast as saint fancytalk (despite his speeches that are even lamer than palin’s), also a sinless son of the whole wide world, and not anti elitist, but an elite who rebels against the elite and has come to protect the poor from their clutches.
I think palin would be more than happy to sell out to big payer interests on the right (and possibly the left) while I can SEE, right NOW, the evidence that obama does the same.
They both, to me, represent shady deals with big bucks and crony capitalism (government favors and interference on the part of campaign sponsors) rather than “freedom” or justice.
My only hard beef with the palin supporters (and the right today) is that they can’t back away from fear, calling it patriotism, and think to act against torture and wars of choice. But then again, I can no longer pretend that the dems don’t do the same. So it looks like I’m just a lefty wacko, stuck with torture and endless wars and corruption, no matter which party is in charge.
What does that make me?
Posted 23 Jan 2010 at 8:23 pm ¶or am I so “one of a kind”? I doubt it.
As a conditional Sarah Palin supporter, I would like to say that Mr. Sullivan did draw up a definitive list of actual lies of hers, some of which could be explained, or show his ignorance of some viewpoints, but some of which are genuinely troubling.
I really think Palin is the best option at the moment, and her lack of qualifications does not trouble me.
I would like to object to the insults against dissenters here.
Posted 24 Jan 2010 at 1:58 pm ¶And I recognize that politically correct sensitivity has made ordinary democrats on the street, people you might talk to, not candidates, incapable of really thinking or dealing with ANY international issues, other than to speak of peace and love, like those were easier than war.
Posted 24 Jan 2010 at 11:08 pm ¶But if republicans are so stoical and independent, why can’t they stop “reacting” to the stupidity of the dem party and many of its voters and follow a serious international strategy of diplomacy and war, while eschewing, intensely, wars of choice and torture.
Why can’t palin say, Obama isn’t defending this country … although I don’t believe in torture and we should stop it and punish it … obama’s plan isn’t serious.
Why does she have to imply that obama’s failing is that his administration isn’t “vicious” enough? Their incompetent, directionless, ignorant, sure. Isn’t that enough? Does the lack of torture have to be a fourth negative for obama? can’t the right say, “obama sucks, but we’re glad the torture has stopped”?
Like I said, the democrats don’t even say that now, so I’m not a lefty (a la andrea sully) who thinks the right is the torture party and the dems are not.
Catron,
Kudos for throwing out that challenge because you wouldn’t believe how rare that is from the right. I’ve wanted to discuss this since the days of “clinton (and bush) lies!” (and if you know of others willing to discuss this please fix this misperception by directing me to some - thanks).
“Lie” is a word that misused about as much as “racist”. It involves motive and awareness of deliberation, so unless they admit to it, we can only judge from the evidence of their statements. How accurate does it represent the indisputable and pertinent facts, etc.
Catron:”Is it because you’re just robotically repeating the BS you’ve feen fed?”
That would be a pojection from a palin supporter.
What would you call avoiding answers that are too hard to refute?
I dont know if you have an aversion to answering to your 10-day old posts, so will just point out that there was no acknowledgement of the prior response to palin lying or not, regarding her “no thanks” bridge stance. Being ignorant of her prior statements isn’t a good image. (Did that fool anyone? Yes, as intended - but only those willing to be fooled)
Couple of points:
1. Sarahphobia is being mistaken for Sarahloathing, which is the same as cheneyloathing. That is the loathing and disgust with deliberate misleadings, where accuracy cant stand up to the simplest fact checking - and how it fools people into believing falsehoods, as intended. Its the degree of inaccuracy or contemptuous of facts that evoke the strongest loathing - as it should from everyone too.
2. She has the base believing she was against receiving bridge funds as governor. Many also believe her enough to believe obama a terrorist, muslim, illegal alien, etc. Its deliberate when they never try to correct things, specially when they’re farthest from the facts.
3. Another base …bamboozlement.. or the blissness in being fooled. Google “palin teleprompter” and see how much the right parrots the false fact of her not using a teleprompter in her last two speeches as gov. Its not her lie, but there is nobody on the right who will dare correct this inaccuracy. Nobody on the left thinks the use of teleprompters should be an issue, the way the right obsesses on it (robotically?). Palin used a teleprompter for both speeches so why why would the right be so content with boasting the opposite - that she didn’t use one?
The right is being expected to be predictably robotic by their pied pipers, to believe the most far fetched things. The deception targets them the most because they are reliably averse to fact checking - doing so would be out-of-step.
Posted 25 Jan 2010 at 5:41 pm ¶Sarah Palin did not put death panel in quotes - she delivered that lie verbally and if she wanted to use wuotes would have raised both hands with two fingers.
The obvious proof of her and her handler’s intent can be seen with the base and how they are parroting that deliberate falsehood. They take her word literally and believe it wasn’t in quotes. They trust her at her word and she is betraying that trust. When will you guys understand this important detail?
Its also very disrespectful to her target audience when taking it for granted that they will automatically buy into any falsehood fed to them, without question. They’ve grown too accustomed to expecting no requests for fact checking and this is only encouraging them to tell bigger and more outlandish lies.
Posted 29 Jan 2010 at 6:13 pm ¶Sarah Palin did not put death panel in quotes - she delivered that lie verbally.
Sorry, mikew, you don’t know what you’re talking about. She made the “death panel” comment in a Facebook post, and it does have quotes around it. You can read it here if you have any interest in actual facts.
Posted 29 Jan 2010 at 6:17 pm ¶Post a Comment