Let it go, Andrew Sullivan.
Your outrage at McCain's selection of a hard right, red meat, social conservative is understandable. Many of us share that outrage. But you've got to get control of yourself on this thing before you lose any ability to persuade audiences beyond yourself and that multitude of other Reaganites who support gay rights.
Drop it. Even Kos is dropping it. Demean her politics. Not her motherhood.
1 comment:
With regards to Mr. Sullivan, I think that he is scapegoating Palin because of the past eight years.
First, he sees himself to be the heir of Edmund Burke and desires to save the philosophy of Conservatism, which McCain and Palin do not exemplify or comprehend. The bastardization of modern day conservatism by the Bush Administration (fiscal, foreign policy) and by social conservatism (Evangelical tyranny) is just about to make his head explode. Even worse, what is a conservative to do when everyone else took the train with Bush? For example, the people at the NRO-- the flagship for the Buckley elites-- would support those who are conservative in name only not because of the issues or the philosophy but because they are not liberal by name.
Second, with Palin, the story is just bizarre. Yesterday, it was odd but, with today's news, it has entered the twilight zone. The facts are terrible-- what woman, who knows she is delivering and, because of her age, may know there are complications, has her water break in the early AM but instead of going to the hospital gives a speech, travels home on a commercial flight, and then travels to a small hospital with no NICU. The reasons: because the father does not want his son to be born in Texas? This is a sign of terrible judgment. What if something went wrong and, after breaking her water, she went in to active labor, with a special needs child (because the baby was not full-term) while flying? What kind of parent does that?
Yet, for Sully, Palin is the culmination of religious ideology i.e. Christianism, in politics. She possesses no "conservatism" traits (she is not a serious thinker; she is not interested in foreign policy; she is not interested in domestic policy; she raises taxes, even when she cuts them; she supported the Bridge to nowhere though she states she against it; etc.).
Even though she seems like a terrible politician, especially a conservative politician, she is the choice for VP. Why? Because she is a woman and she is evangelical.
For a party to allow a major domestic crisis to occur on their watch and then deny its existence; for a party to initiate a war (which Sully supported) with no evidence; for a party to show no fiscal constraint; for a party to allow torture to be an American policy; for a part to nominate John McCain when he clearly does not possess the temperament; for a party to allow McCain to nominate Palin for VP, there can be no hope and the only means for redemption is to acknowledge the inadequacy of conservatism.
Others are thinking this yet only he is writing this.
Post a Comment