Andrew Sullivan has jumped the shark

Andrew Sullivan, teasing us with the "possibility here of such a huge scandal that we would be crazy not to take our time either to debunk it or move it forward for further examination" suspended blogging operations so that he and his staff could go over Sarah Palin's new book with a fine toothed comb. His blogging seems to have returned to normal today, but his Face of the Day is none other than Palin family outlaw Levi Johnston posing for Playgirl.

Gay man lust. Eww. But, "Not that there's anything wrong with that!"

Look, I agree with Sullivan to the extent that I think that Sarah Palin would be an awful President, and that Barack Obama is a good President. But the effusive gushing over Obama, the creepy man crush he appears to have on Levi, the vendetta-like preoccupation with Palin, and the pompous self-importance he's attached to said vendetta, makes reading his blog extremely uncomfortable at times.

I especially don't get the breathless shilling for Levi. The Palins are right off the set of Judge Judy. When dealing with such people, it is best not to get too involved, much less choose sides. Even if Sarah Palin is a liar, that doesn't make Levi a truth-teller. Turn the channel, I say.

Comments

[Jonathan Marlowe]

Didn't he jump the shark a long time ago, like when he wrote the article in Time in March of 2003, arguing that the invasion of Iraq would be moral?
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1004321-1,00.html

[Marvin]

Well yes, there was that...

To Sullivan's credit, he eventually repudiated the war as it unfolded so disastrously. He does deserve credit for not sticking his head in the sand in the face of inconvenient facts.

As of this morning he's still beating on Palin like drum.

[Lee]

The thing that grates on me about Sullivan is how he can be completely, utterly invested in one position and then turn on a dime to just as wholeheartedly embrace its opposite. "Often wrong, but never in doubt" comes to mind. And it wasn't so much his support for the Iraq war that caused me to stop reading him for a few years, but his insistence that those who opposed the Administration's war aims were a potential fifth column, "objectively pro-Saddam," etc. He only won me back with his uncompromising coverage of the torture issue.