Replies

No one here will accuse me of being a Palin partisan (usually I'm called a hater), so allow me:

Here's a revealing glimpse into how a delusional, incompetent, pathological liar has managed never to hold a real press conference...

Every delusional, ignorant nutcase...

propaganda...propaganda outlet...

from Wikipedia:

Intermittent explosive disorder (abbreviated IED) is a behavioral disorder characterized by extreme expressions of anger, often to the point of uncontrollable rage, that are disproportionate to the situation at hand. It is currently categorized in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as an impulse control disorder.

Andrew Sullivan is suffering from AIDS. I can tell you, as someone with a good friend who has had AIDS for many years (and who has survived it in part thanks to doing what the "experts" said NOT to do years ago--give the body periodic rests from the chemicals that strip the body of strength), ,amy who suffer from AIDS have great amounts of anger and hatred. While this is understandable, some of these people end up directing their hatred in bizarre directions.

I am not mocking Sullivan. I find a lot of the anti-gay comments posted here and elsewhere hateful and, frankly, un-Christian coming from Christian people.

But sometimes you have to look at the evidence, and conclude there is something unhinged about this person.

The reason I banged on and on about Palin's bizarre story about her fifth campaign prop during the campaign was not because I wanted to invade someone's privacy, or engage in loony conspiracy theories.

Why have none of his friends taken him aside and pointed out that this is EXACTLY what someone who's become fixated on something to the point that it's permanently wounded his career would say in defense of something so personal, so hateful, and so frickin nutty as his intense hatred for Palin, and his "Palin baby-birther" one-man conspiracy theory?

In Andrew Sullivan we are seeing something very bizarre and kinda sad--a person losing his mind on the page.

...”But sometimes you have to look at the evidence, and conclude there is something unhinged about this person.

Why have none of his friends taken him aside and pointed out that this is EXACTLY what someone who’s become fixated on something to the point that it’s permanently wounded his career would say in defense of something so personal, so hateful, and so frickin nutty as his intense hatred for Palin, and his “Palin baby-birther” one-man conspiracy theory?

In Andrew Sullivan we are seeing something very bizarre and kinda sad—a person losing his mind on the page”...

I totally agree...

I think you might be on to something with regard to Mr. Sullivan, whose writing once used to contain more than a hint of rationality, and which today, sadly, resembles nothing so much as the handwritten diary of an obsessive-compulsive recluse. By contrast, I found Quin Hillyer's piece about Sarah Palin in The American Spectator to be fair and balanced, even if I disagreed with some of its conclusions.

Out of necessity, a reporter must make judgments about their subject when confronted with a pattern of behavior, even in the light of competing or contradictory information. I feel Mr. Hillyer did so faithfully in his article as opposed to Sullivan, who can no longer even claim the pretense of objectivity. Were I to make a judgment about the latter in light of his own behavior, it would tend, as you suggest toward blaming the inferior quality of Mr. Sullivan's most recent demonstrations not on diminished skills, but rather on diminished capacity.