Fudgie the Clown's short break to sell books to suckers turned out to be just that; a short break. Now he's back doing what he does best... Getting all batshit crazy about Sarah Palin:
Well, as promised the Dish is back to normal. I'm not. "Going Rogue" is such a postmodern book that treating it as some kind of factual narrative to check (as I began to), or comparing its version of events with her previous versions of the same events (as I have), and comparing all those versions with what we know is empirical reality (so many lies, so little time) is just a dizzying task. The lies and truths and half-truths and the facts and non-facts are all blurred together in a pious puree of such ghastly prose that, in the end, the book can only really be read as a some kind of chapter in a cheap nineteenth century edition of "Lives of the Saints." But as autobiography.
First, let's note the obvious: There never really was a "normal" from which Andrew departed. His obsession with Sarah Palin, Trig Palin and Sarah Palin's fifth pregnancy continues to be genuinely creepy.
Next, let's note Andrew Sullivan's pseudo-intellectual pretense here. Just what is meant by this phrase:
Going Rogue is such a postmodern book...
A postmodern book? Now what the fuck does that mean? I don't know. You don't know. And you know what? Neither does Andrew. It's an intellectually empty catch-phrase. It's the sort of fashionable nothing that allows people who aren't clever enough to accurately express their thoughts (if they actually have any) the opportunity to fill the void; because Lord Knows, one can't just say nothing, now can one? So it is with Sullivan.
It's also worth noting that no matter how badly Going Rogue is written, I doubt it has anything to match the laugh-out-loud awfulness of this:
The lies and truths and half-truths and the facts and non-facts are all blurred together in a pious puree of such ghastly prose...
A pious puree? Lordy, that's enough to break the Purple Prose Meter. I mean, Amanda Marcotte wouldn't write that for fear of death by embarrassment.
Then we get this:
It is a religious book, full of myths and parables. And yet it is also crafted politically, with every single "detail" of the narrative honed carefully for specific constituencies. It is also some kind of manifesto - but not in the usual sense of a collection of policy proposals. It is a manifesto for the imagined life of an imagined Sarah Palin as a leader for all those who identify with the image and background she relentlessly claims to represent.
Wait a second. I thought this was a postmodern book. Now it's a religious book? Is it a postmodern religious book?
Or what?
Oh, it's a political book? A postmodern political book? A religious postmodern political book?
Impressive.
Even more impressive? It's also a manifesto! A religious postmodern political manifesto! A pious puree of a religious postmodern political manifesto. Of a book. With ghastly prose, no less.
Then there's the paragraph's laugh-out-loud bit (each paragraph has at least one, you know):
It is a manifesto for the imagined life of an imagined Sarah Palin as a leader for all those who identify with the image and background she relentlessly claims to represent.
The only part of Sarah Palin's life that has been imagined is the part that Andrew Sullivan has imagined. The facts of Sarah Palin's life and background are both well documented and straightforward. Only in the fevered creepiness of Sullivan's own obsessions do we find imaginings of faked pregnancies and whatnot. Not even the most rabid of the legions of Palin haters are willing to there...
Only Andrew.
In fact, not even Sullivan's employer, The Atlantic, was willing to let him imagine in print to the extent that he was inclined. The Atlantic's acute embarrassment over his imagined Palin life was, in fact, the reason The Dish went silent last year... Sullivan's editors couldn't take it any more and shut him down.
Sullivan continues:
In this, the book is emblematic of late degenerate Republicanism, which is based not on actual policies, but on slogans now so exhausted by over-use they retain no real meaning: free enterprise is great, God loves us all, America is fabulous, foreigners are suspect, we need to be tough, we can't dither, we must always cut taxes, government is bad, liberals are socialists, the media hates you, etc etc.
For me, there's nothing quite like having a British-born, Ivy League educated, pot smoking, HIV-positive homosexual atheist with a Green Card (and who should be facing deportation on drug charges, by the way) stridently announcing where American conservatism has gone wrong.
Kinda puts things in perspective.
The hilarity in this paragraph? Sullivan's choice of the word degenerate. You'd think it would be one he'd instinctively shy away from, wouldn't you?
Then comes this:
I tried to write a fair account of Palin's various stories of her incredible fifth pregnancy, labor and delivery and to reconcile all the various facts we know and the various versions of the story she has told. Just for the record and because we have aired the public record on this before. I honestly however cannot make total sense of them in a way that I'm completely convinced by and so simply do not feel comfortable making any judgment on them in any way at this point. That's fair to her, my readers, my colleagues, and the innocent private people caught up in this circus.
No, Andrew, what you actually did was to try to claim that Sarah Palin faked a pregnancy to cover for her daughter's pregnancy. You did this based on a couple of pictures and a few newspaper accounts. There was nothing fair about what you did. Even by the incredibly low standards of "professional" journalism, what you did was beneath contempt.
The hilarity here? The entire paragraph. In its verbose incoherence, it is worthy of inclusion in the pantheon of This Week's Amanda Sentence... as a Special Grand Jury Prize winner, no less!
Next comes the funniest line in Sullivan's post. And remember, this asshole has a degree from Harvard:
I thought there might be some new facts in here that would illuminate my confusion and dispel the whole thing.
Without much fear of contradiction, Andrew, I'd say you're confusion is about as illuminated as it can possibly be. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure what you want are some new facts to dispel your confusion and end the whole thing. Although what that particular "whole thing" is remains unclear. Nice writing, though. It's good to see you can get through Harvard without having to know how to use the word illuminate correctly in a sentence.
Moving on, we come to an unnerving bit of projection on Sullivan's part:
There is, rather, more barely-credible myth-making and descriptions of actions taken that really make no sense even on their own terms. But since we now know that Palin tells odd lies all the time even when she doesn't have to, we cannot hold her to common sense readings. The story she tells is largely incredible if you assume a rational actor at the center of it. But we do not have a rational actor in the center of it; we have an unbalanced, delusional, ambitious fanatic whose relationship to reality is entirely instrumental and can change from minute to minute. And so we cannot even say: that doesn't make sense so it probably isn't true. With Palin, anything is possible her world is so imaginary and magical. Much that makes sense with others may not make sense with her. And without external evidence, how can we tell which is which?
Actually, the "unbalanced, delusional, ambitious fanatic" of this non-story isn't Sarah Palin. It's Andrew Sullivan. There is nothing incredible about the story of Sarah Palin's pregnancy. Nothing in the least. You have to be of a truther/birther sort of bent, intellectually, to convince yourself - based on second- and third-hand information - that Sarah Palin and most of the political and medical establishment of Alaska manufactured a gigantic conspiracy to cover up a teen pregnancy. At this point, the only difference I can see between Orly Taitz and Andrew Sullivan is that Taitz wears fewer dresses most weeks.
And after the projection, we get the whimper:
So what to do? First off, she cannot be given the benefit of the doubt. And the Dish will continue to monitor those odd lies that can be independently and objectively proven, as we have all along. But for those things we cannot prove objectively, we just have to leave alone at this point. I believe nothing she says is true unless I can verify it. But if I can't disprove her accounts of things only she and her family can know about, I should shut up.
Actually, you never should have opened your mouth in the first place. Had you exercised a bit of professional judgment, you never would have made the claim you made in the first place. Then again, you could have quit The Atlantic and actually...
- Gone to Alaska, and
- Interviewed Palin, or
- Palin's daughter, or
- The rest of the Palin clan, or
- Palin's doctor(s), or
- The hospital's staff, or
- Palin's staff, or
- Palin's personal and/or political enemies, or
- Anyone esle claiming to have knowledge of this event and/or conspiracy.
But that would have involved Andrew Sullivan doing two things he does not like doing: Working and sacrificing. You see, going to Alaska to prove or disprove his allegations would have required Andrew Sullivan to get off his fat ass and actually do some work. That's not his style. And since The Atlantic clearly would not have paid Sullivan to tilt at this Alaskan windmill, he would also would have been required to put his own money where is mouth was. Let's face it, if there isn't money in it for Andrew Sullivan, it isn't going to happen. Period.
And after the whimper, we get the dramatics:
Move on and forget about her? If only. Not just because she is a vital figure in this country's politics right now and one of the most dangerous demagogues this country has seen in a long time, but because I just want to know. I want to know what really lies under that facade.
Why is Sarah Palin "one of the most dangerous demagogues tis country has seen in a long time"? Because Andrew Sullivan's obsessed with her. That's why. I mean, given just how important Andrew is, it wouldn't do to have him obsessing over the ex-governor of Alaska and the potential threat to the Republic that comes from said ex-governor's book tour unless she represented something really sinister. Right? For someone who claims Sarah Palin is a dangerous lightweight because she doesn't spend time on policy proposals, Sullivan's attitude seems dangerously lightweight.
And as Andrew winds down, we get another sample of Harvard writing, as well as an idea of the sort of work ethic the man brings to his job:
I'm going to keep poring over transcripts, Nexis and anything else I can find to monitor this phenomenon - and its many tributaries and nuances and narratives. If you have any verifiable facts or objective evidence relating to "Going Rogue", you have my email address. Everything is in total confidence. No wild-ass theories (we have more than enough of them). Just facts that I can establish as objective and that illuminate any part of the story in front of us.
"...tributaries and nuances and narratives..."? Bwhahahahahaha!
Amanda, where art thou, my muse?
Beyond that, I have a hard time believing that Andrew Sullivan really thinks Sarah Palin's the most dangerous demogogue in America when the best he can do in the motivation department is to rouse himself to ask for email tips from his readers. Either Sarah's not quite the threat he says she is, or Andrew's been smoking some serious Arkansas Polio Weed and is on the verge of total dope paralysis.
Real threats tend to harsh the mellow, Andrew.
And as if all the above wasn't bad enough, we get this parting shot from Andrew Sullivan, OB/GYN:
As Sarah Palin says she said to herself after her water broke in Dallas and contractions had started and she had given a speech while experiencing more contractions and skipped the reception before getting on a transcontinental air flight all the way from Dallas to Seattle, then Anchorage and then Wasilla,
"I still have plenty of time."
God, what a creep.
