when obsession can be a good thing

When Obsession Can Be a Good Thing

November 17th, 2009 | By: Michael Merritt

Tags:

Leave a comment
| Trackback

The other day I wrote an article about Sarah Palin’s apparently toying with the idea earlier this year to file suit against blogger Andrew Sullivan for libel.  In a sort of follow-up to that article, today I noticed a peculiarity with Palin: she has a penchant for changing her stories.

You see, the thing about being obsessed with something is that you’re, well, obsessed.  In the case of a blogger like Andrew Sullivan, the tools he employs to feed his obsession allow him to keep great records of said obsession.  In this case, the records involve her changing story about the events immediately proceeding her acceptance of the Vice Presidential nomination.

We all know the story, don’t we?  Palin went to her family and asked for their input.  They were all for it, and history was made.  Don’t take my word or Sullivan’s word for it, take hers:

“It was a time of asking the girls to vote on it, anyway.  And they voted unanimously, yes.  Didn’t bother asking my son because, you know, he’s going to be off doing his thing anyway, so he wouldn’t be so impacted by, at least, the campaign period here.  So ask the girls what they thought and they’re like, absolutely.  Let’s do this, mom.”

Sullivan questioned the story at the time, saying it just didn’t fit in the chronology:

Look: Palin can’t have taken the “two days” between McCain’s offer and the announcement to get the girls to vote on the question because a) it was one day, not two and b) because her husband and the McCain campaogn [sic] have already told us they were kept totally in the dark in the period after their mother had accepted McCain’s offer. There was no time for them to vote and no vote could have been offered.

I’ll bet Sullivan is feeling vindicated now, because the story has changed.  And unlike some of the other alleged quotes out there, such as those coming from former McCain campaign officials, this one comes straight from Palin herself:

This time, there wasn’t a family vote. Other steps in my political life, I’ve polled the kids, and I have abided by some of the results of the polls that the kids have partaken in. This time, no.

Like I said in my last article, Sullivan was right to ask questions.  How many other stories will change over time?  I think that eventually some Palinistas are going to have to accept, just like some Obama supporters have, that at best she’s just another politician.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine


  1. Jay_C

    November 17th, 2009 at 16:57

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #1

    “How many other stories will change over time? I think that eventually some Palinistas are going to have to accept, just like some Obama supporters have, that at best she’s just another politician.”

    Sure, I agree.. But, I think, Sullivan’s goal is not to pronounce, simply, like you said “like some Obama supporters have, that at best she’s just another politician”

    If that was it, I’d have no beef with him. He, like the rest of MSM, wants to take her down. Where is the “Serial Liar” label on Obama? He made so many promises, and has gotten so little done,. Right?

    Interesting take here by John Hudson of the Atlantic:

    http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/What-Palins-Detractors-Dont-Understand-1610


  2. Michael Merritt

    November 18th, 2009 at 01:41

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #2

    But, I think, Sullivan’s goal is not to pronounce, simply, like you said “like some Obama supporters have, that at best she’s just another politician”

    I don’t disagree. He’s strayed into PDS many times. People who do such things are not usually looking to just ask tough questions.

    As for a politician’s promises made during the campaign trail, I’ll wait to give my full review about the success or failure of his agenda in three years. What I’m more concerned with in the context of this article is things politicians have claimed and that later turned out to untrue.

    And yea, Obama’s told some lies, though his record isn’t so bad. A little above average if you take those rankings (I’ve found PF to be pretty fair and balanced) to heart. Though certainly not a post-partisan dream.


  3. CStanley

    November 18th, 2009 at 15:27

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #3

    This is such an innocuous ‘lie’, an anecdote about her family which at worst was probably due to her thinking at the time she was first questioned about it that it would sound bad if she had made the decision without consulting with her family.

    And that’s what makes the obsession, including the current ‘gotcha’, so patently absurd. Bill Clinton was absolutely notorious for these kinds of lies, and Hillary was caught in at least one during the campaign too (for Bill, the most egregious example I recall was his recollection of AR black churches being burned down when he was a child, when the historical record shows that it didn’t happen; Hillary’s lie during the campaign of course was about experiencing gunfire in Bosnia- and let’s not forget that she once claimed to have been named after Sir Edmund Hillary even though he was not known outside of New Zealand until his years after her birth.)

    Normal, non-obsessed/deranged people chuckle at these things. No rational person thinks that these types of ‘lies’, even if habitual, make a politician unfit for office.


  4. Doomed

    November 18th, 2009 at 15:49

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #4

    Normal, non-obsessed/deranged people chuckle at these things. No rational person thinks that these types of ‘lies’, even if habitual, make a politician unfit for office.

    PROGRESSIVE’s attempt at deflecting the debate away from health care.

    The Liberals would not let us change the subject for 7 years when Bush was in charge. It was all war, all the time.

    Now they are constantly trying to change the subject away from anything health care and when the Cap and tax comes up it will be more of the same.


  5. Doomed

    November 20th, 2009 at 16:35

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #5

    I actually went to the Sullivan blog and took a look at his Palin LIES and what he said about those lies and then went and read the links he provided.

    He basically misquoted nearly every link, twisted it into something that it was not and then implied she lied. On the polifact check he would get anywhere from half truth to pants on fire ratings.

    Andrew Sullivan definately suffers from a severe case of PDS.

    Hes got it bad. He no longer has any credibility when it comes to speaking about Sarah Palin and by design his once prominent stature is becoming clouded into just another far left political hack. His stock is going down rather drastically when you become a known hack for one side or the other.




NOTE: PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to basic standards of civility and topicality.

We reserve the right to edit or delete comments which are in our judgment egregiously and
gratuitously uncivil. We also reserve the right to delete all comments which are off-topic,
including those that grossly distort the topic of the post or serve merely as vehicles for
spamming.

Complaints or concerns about deleted or edited comments should be sent by email only. Complaints
posted as comments will be deleted.

Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate the comments policy may be banned.