Andrew Sullivan Comes Undone

"On the site of what had once been Project X, nothing remained alive among the ruins--except, for some endless minutes longer, a huddle of torn flesh and screaming pain that had once been a great mind."

It seems every time I read Andrew Sullivan -- which is far too often I'm afraid -- I'm reminded of these lines from Atlas Shrugged regarding the death of one of the main villains: the brilliant Dr. Robert Stadler.   The tragedy of Dr. Stadler is that he knew better.  Unlike many of the other villains in the novel who seem to be intrinsically evil, Dr. Stadler was once a "good guy" but, blinded by the opportunity for fame and social approval, loses his bearings.

In much the same way, Sullivan, once a great mind of the conservative/libertarian movement, has become so blinded by his hatred of President Bush -- and mind you, I share many of his criticisms of Bush -- and the modern Right that he seems incapable of rational thought on any aspect of modern politics.  And nowhere is that more evident than his criticisms of Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

Take this little screed, entitled "George W. Palin."  In pertinent part:

Whatever skills Palin may turn out to have, however fabulous a person she may turn out to be, even if she becomes the Eva Peron of Christianism, McCain

had no idea when he picked her.

He winged this. That's the critical, unavoidable, devastating point.

John McCain has demonstrated with this insane decision that he is unfit to be president of the United States. This was an act of near-criminal negligence. If he can behave this recklessly and impulsively with this decision, the idea of allowing him to become president of the United States is only a smidgen less terrifying than thinking of Palin in that position.

Whatever few doubts I may once have still had about this election, they are resolved now.

Obama has to win. The alternative is unthinkable.

"Near-criminal negligence?" Oh my.  Well, after you've wiped Sullivan's spittle off your screen, realize what you have to ignore to agree with him.  You have to ignore that fact that the idea that McCain didn't vet or follow Palin closely is complete bunk (and the fact that no one in the media knew that Palin was about to be picked doesn't = "not vetted").  You have to ignore that close watchers of the political process have been suggesting Palin as a Veep for several months -- so why should it be a surprise that McCain came up with her as his pick?  You have to ignore that Kerry's veep in 2004 -- a one-term backbencher in the Senate -- was little more experienced than Palin (and a lot more unctous), but it did not stop Sullivan from endorsing that ticket.

And, of course, you have ignore that the prescribed cure for an ultra-experienced Senator who has the temerity to appoint a young, relatively inexperienced governor to be his running mate and who has about a 88% chance of becoming President (actuarily speaking) -- a UNTHINKABLE alternative -- is a guy who was a part-time state legislator four years ago and who would have a 100% chance of becoming President if elected (and let's not start with his errors in judgment).  You know, the guy who not that long ago compared the Virginia Tech shootings to layoffs (and referred to layoffs as a form of "violence").

Thumbing through Sullivan's blog the last couple of days has just been sad.  He's given knee-jerk affirmations of every conspiracy theory and charge hurled against Palin.  She won't give interviews !!! (oops)  Her daughter gave birth to Trig, and Palin covered!!! (oops)**  SHE HAD AN AFFAIR!!!!!!! (oops)  I understand the need to ask questions.  But one generally doesn't ask these type of questions without some type of basis for them, other than "golly, I don't remember seeing a picture of her when she was preggers." 

And just today we learned from Sullivan that the McCain campaign is sexist for not getting Palin immediately on MTP; after all, most Veep choices give their first interview within 10 days of being selected.  For a slightly more, um, excited version of this, you can read here:

This is incredible, totally incredible. A vice presidential candidate isn't going to be available to the press for two weeks? Two weeks? In September. We have this total unknown who could be president of the United States next January. And she's in hiding for two weeks. Chris Matthews on this clip says that this is fine. Has he lost his mind? She needs to be in front of the press now. The United States and the world cannot have this total unknown foisted on the presidency without any serious vetting and without any press interaction. This is absolutely third world. Since when is the governor of a state given two weeks in hiding?

The sexism that implies that someone cannot stand up to reporters because she is a woman is appalling. This entire pick, of course, is incredibly sexist, and the handling of her in the last week the most sexist double standard I have ever seen in American politics. Can you imagine Hillary Clinton saying she wasn't going to answer questions for two weeks? Or Margaret Thatcher? Or Kay Bailey Hutchison? Or Elizabeth Dole? And none of these women were ever as close to global power as Sarah Palin now is. This is getting to Manchurian Candidate levels of creepiness. It's deeply sinister and slightly terrifying.

Am I the only one who can't read this without picturing him typing furiously, while ranting to his beagles?  Anyway, the (first) problem is that Palin probably isn't really any closer to the Presidency than Hillary Clinton was -- after all, Palin is a vice-Presidential nominee.  Not a Presidential nominee, like Hillary was about 100 delegates away from becoming (and unlike Obama, Clinton probably would have a hard time losing the general election).  Second, sexism???  There is absolutely nothing to support the allegation that the McCain campaign is shielding Palin (to the extent they are shielding her) because she's a woman. 

Look.  It is 60 days from the election.  People are just now tuning in -- it doesn't bother me the least that she wasn't giving some MTP interview back in July that  was only going to be watched by policy wonks and pundits.  She will be scrutinized, there will be interviews -- perhaps not as fast as Sullivan wants -- and there will be the typical vice-Presidential debate.  By November -- the real relevant date, just as February 2007 was not the relevant date to assess Obama's readiness for the Presidency -- we will be more than ready to assess whether Palin will be ready to be President should McCain end up on the short end of the 87% chance he has of living to 77. 

As for the entire pick being sexist, I don't think the history of vice-Presidents is one of storied experience.  Going back to FDR, you had as veeps a congressman who had spent most of his time in the minority, and then, at a time when FDR was really sick, we had a left-wing nutter who had been a cabinet secretary, and a back-bench Senator owing fealty to a corrupt machine.  Truman gave us a very experienced Senator as veep.  Ike -- another old, unhealthy man -- gave us a 39-year-old, two-term Congressman who was just two years into his first Senate term.  Johnson was an experienced Veep who had an experienced veep.  Nixon's veep was also a two-year Governor.  After that, things get better, with Mondale, Bush, and Gore being relatively experienced picks, although one would question Mondale's choice of a three-term Congresswoman.  There is of course the J. Danforth Quayle choice in 1988, and let's not forget that Gore came a hair's breadth away from picking Edwards in 2000, when Edwards was two years into his Senate term.

The point is, if you know anything about Vice Presidential history, Palin's pick is not unprecedented in terms of experience.  Now, most of the inexperienced veep picks haven't turned out that great, but stll, the fact of the existence of less-experienced vice-Presidents than Palin seems to cut against the idea that her pick is the most sexist thing ever seen in American politics.  Its probably less sexist than, say, referring to a reporter as "sweetie." (inter alia) Unless you just feel like saying the pick was sexist, which I understand may be cathartic.

And then we get this:

Steve Schmidt does not impress me in the slightest. He is guilty of professional malpractice. And some of us can't be bullied by spitballs from National Review. I will keep asking questions - in order to provide as much information to my readership as possible. We don't live in a totalitarian society. We can talk about whatever the hell we want. And if the First Amendment does not apply to asking important questions of someone who could be president next January, then it's meaningless.

Ooooooookay.  Last I checked, the police weren't knocking down Sullivan's door in the middle of the night to drag him out for beatings.  The First Amendment absolutely guarantees Sullivan to answer whatever questions he wants.  But you know what?  It also allows the rest of us to point out when the questions are stupid (see most of the above), the subject of a double standard , or crass.  If Sullivan stuck to posts like these, questioning Palin's fiscal conservative bona fides, he'd be in better shape.  If he'd avoided endorsing the guy who thinks the government is about $300 billion short of spending enough.

This really is too bad, for he really was once a great mind.

**And when your arguments begin to become "well, such-and-such didn't directly deny it" or "well why didn't they do [fill in blank with what you know ANYONE in their position would do], huh?" you've generally descended into conspiracy nut territory.