I don't normally read Andrew Sullivan, but a kind reader pointed out to me a recent, unhinged post where he calls Sarah Palin a "liar" among other things I won't print here because she, allegedly, lied about the origins of one of her daughter's name.
She didn't lie, but Sullivan didn't even bother reading the article he used as his source before skewering Palin under the Atlantic's name. (Is their anyone keeping tabs on him over there??) He read a summary
of the article, according to his post.
"Her unstable grip on reality, taken for granted in Alaska, is the reason many of us simply do not believe a word she says unless we have actual evidence for it," says the man who embarked on a one-man campaign to find out of Palin really was the mother of baby Trig. (He still isn't convinced by the way).
The source of his latest ire was a magazine article by Esquire he didn't read.
Apparently, she told Esquire one
of the reasons she named her daughter Bristol after the city ESPN calls home. She also liked the name because of Bristol Bay, Alaska.
Sullivan stopped at the first reason, screamed liar on his blog because he's heard her say in other interviews Bristol was named after the Bay. (Yes, I know this sounds ridiculous, but stick with me.) He didn't know that she told Esquire the Bay was part of it as well. He later corrected his post although it
wasn't very heartfelt.
He issued an "update" to his "correction" stating it was "highly unlikely" Palin knew what ESPN was when she had Bristol. Based on zero evidence of course. So, you know, she could probably, still maybe, possibly be a liar in Sullivan's eyes.
(I can't help but mention that Palin is much more of a sportsman/sportswoman than Andrew Sullivan could ever hope to be.)
I feel somewhat foolish even having to rehash all this, but it seems necessary to show how absolutely irrational some people, like Sullivan, become when it comes to Palin.