McCain Campaign Goes After Andrew Sullivan

The McCain campaign has been attacking the media all week, a move that seems like idiotic strategy to me. The people who are persuaded by that kind of attack already are voting for McCain. Everybody else will just dismiss it as whining, which is pretty low on the list of presidential verbs.

McCain spokesman Michael Goldfarb recently leaked two private emails from blogger Andrew Sullivan to the media:

1. "I'm very sorry to say, it's come to this: can you confirm on the record that Trig Palin is Sarah Palin's biological son? ... Since this is a crazy idea, it should be easy for you or someone to let me know, the most popular one-man political blog site in the world, what the truth is."

2. "I asked a simple question akin to asking whether you can confirm that the sky is blue. Here's the question in case it got lost: can you confirm on the record that Trig Palin is Sarah Palin's biological son? Can I please get a response of some sort, even if it is that you will not respond?"

The point of sending the emails out, Goldfarb told Howard Kurtz, was to show "the insanity that this campaign has had to put up with for the last month."

Sullivan didn't do anything wrong here by privately pressing the campaign to answer a question that would knock down some wild speculation. Political reporters undoubtedly are doing that all the time, given the amount of rumors and unsourced claims that fly around blogs during the heat of a presidential campaign. Instead of dealing with Sullivan or ignoring him, Goldfarb sought to embarrass one of the most well-read political bloggers, a conservative who has become a strong critic of McCain during this election. Doesn't McCain's campaign have better things to do at the moment than settle scores?


Sullivan's a conservative like I'm a liberal. And he was pushing Trig Trutherism far beyond the point that any logical person would have done. Pandering to him is pointless.

The guy wrote The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It, How to Get It Back. He's a strange conservative, to be sure, but how does somebody stop being a conservative because he doesn't support McCain? How many Republicans were saying McCain isn't a conservative back in the primaries?

And he was pushing Trig Trutherism far beyond the point that any logical person would have done

If the McCain camp wants to stop said trutherism, why the frick would they stir this pot in the Washington Post? Sully had given up on it.

It's like the BS about "my family's out of bounds" followed by the weird tarmac shotgun wedding scene with the daughter and her babbydaddy at the convention.

Sully's a strange cat. These people are stranger.

Hey, Rogers! I'd like you to confirm or deny that tadowe is not the father of your son, as was alluded to by tadowe in one of his posts.

Either that, or discuss the validity of my asking that question, or what my motives in doing so might be?

Your brain has a kink in it, Rogers, and since for partisanship, you abandon all reason and logic to suppor the validity of asking such "questions" as that!

Why not get right to the *POINT*, and ask Republicans if it is true that they drink the blood of babies in their politcal rights?

The Progresssives are in lock-step now! So, here you are taking control and repeating one of your party's Big Lie efforts! Lies via innuendo and rumor, all for your party ... all to support them ... to defend them as legitimate questions, and that the public can ask any negative question and defame anyone for votes, since the "answer" can be ignored as a cover-up.

Obama, with that logic, should be harassed with this question, "Are you, or are you not a Muslim, and because you had Islam instilled in you during your years as a student at an Islamic school?"

That "question" is much more valid than was Palin's daughter the real mother of the (shudder) Down's syndrome baby, the one they happen to love ...

Progressives are coming to resemble Shakespeare's witches stirring the cauldron of hate and vitriol for their cackling goals. World class rumor mongers for votes, rapidly switching from subversion of success in Iraq, to whose baby is whose, and how'd she get pregnant so fast, again!?! These are the world shattering "questions" that demonstrate the real and disgusting character that Progressives posses, filled with questions of hate and dehumanization for votes.

Obama, with that logic, should be harassed with this question, "Are you, or are you not a Muslim, and because you had Islam instilled in you during your years as a student at an Islamic school?"

We're talking about what reporters ask the campaign, not the candidate. Two different things.

Rogers responds, "We're talking about what reporters ask the campaign, not the candidate. Two different things."

How so? Wouldn't that be a valid negative question to ask the Obama campaign? How could they defend against it? And, since it was promoted by the Clinton campaign, originally?

The question of Obama's religious beliefs is not a valid one; whether asked of the candidate or campaign. It requires the person to respond in trying to disprove that negative. The only reason for the question in the first place (or your support for it) is to appeal to the knee-jerk reaction of the mob. You pander to the fence-sitter's attention to rumor, and hope to appeal to the bad-side of human nature to gather votes.

Neither are questions about Palin's daughter, and which wasn't allowed by the Democrats for any Democratic president. However, that doesn't apply to Democrats, and since they are special human beings who can rumor monger and subvert the success of wars for votes, and then call themselves, "Patriots".

The People's Progressive Democratic Party can revile their fellow man, and then turn around and mock those who provide them with their own medicine.

I'm so gratified to see the Democrat Party demonstrate what a gang of hate mongers you really happen to be! It gives Middle America and the rest of the world a good look at who they should really be afraid of being in control of the world's greatest Armed Forces.

I actually get a kick when Progressives start quoting "conservatives" to justify their hatemongering!

Is Michael Savage a "conservative"? He HATES Bush more than Leftists do; however much more he actually hates those same Leftists!

I've been banned from one of those reactionary rightwing sites for disagreeing that the USA was not restricted to a formal declaration of war to conduct military operations. An obvious fact of history that both Left and Right lie about for their partisan proselyting!

How much more interesting to find a site that won't ban me for stating the facts, and however successful I become in presenting that factual commentary, in imitation of Leftist rhetoric! I'm filled-to-the-brim with joy!

The perfect Mutt-and-Jeff blog ... with your crowd providing the demonstration in support of my characterizations of "Progressives" ... exciting, indeed!

Progressives are coming to resemble Shakespeare's witches affarrrrgh pffft ssssss grrrrr pluh bubabuba

And thus my question of why the McPalin campaign encourages trutherism is answered.

Sven has an epiphany, "And thus my question of why the McPalin campaign encourages trutherism is answered."

See? The Leftist Progressive Democrats can make allusions to handicapped bastards, but conservatives are some sort of invented word ('trutherists') to insult them if they allude to the hatemongering-for-votes that sort of partisan effort to stir up lies represents!

Thanks, Sven, I really couldn't do it without you and the ilk to demonstrate the correctness of my analogies.


No. Sully Trutherist. You Trubel* Goldfarb AgenPro.**

Takes three to tango, baby.

* True believer

** Agent provocateur

Rogers Cadenhead (not pictured): nattering nabob of negativism, or Natnabneg.

And me? I have no shame. Putting on my Trutherist hat, I'll ask a question. What is Tomasky talking about here?

This is like a man who gets caught cheating on his wife and then, with his back against the wall and with confrontation looming, goes out and intentionally wrecks the car, contriving to break a few ribs and get rushed to the hospital, all to delay the inevitable conflict and in the cynical knowledge that, in front of the doctors and until the wounds are bound, the wife will be forced to offer sympathy.

Did McCain really intentionally injure himself? I've never heard that one.

heh heh

It's got nothing to do with McCain - Sullivan was never really a conservative, and stopped pretending to be one long ago. He's neither observant nor insightful, and when he pretends to be objective or centrist it's nauseating that anyone believes him.

Sven, Sullivan stayed with Trig Trutherism long past the point where the daughter was revealed to be pregnant. Even if it were credible before that, which it wasn't, beyond that it was just retarded. Sullivan lost credibility long ago and now he's just a bad joke.

P.S. "family's out of bounds" is an Obama quote.

Change you can trust, a slogan that could turn around McCain's campaign?

Change you can trust contrasts beautifully with change you can believe in.

Everyone wants change, only with a team that we can trust to implement it.
If you're in a tough spot, you want someone to come to help you that you can trust, not someone you believe may want to help you.

John McCain, polls show, is rated as highly qualified and highly trusted. This slogan, change you can trust, reinforces this message.

It can even be added on to John McCain's current slogan. Country first, change you can trust. Or perhaps Change you can trust that puts Country first. Or how about Change you can trust that puts America first

It implies without directly saying it that the other side is perhaps a little less trustworthy.

It also reinforces the message that in a time we were facing battle with Al Qaeda worldwide and two conventional wars, John McCain is a commander in chief you can trust to lead us to victory.

There are 30 days left before Election Day. Sarah Palin's debate performance was good, but it's really up to John McCain to win.





John, are you listening???

Add a Comment

All comments are moderated before publication. These HTML tags are permitted: <p>, <b>, <i>, <a>, and <blockquote>. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA (for which the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply).