Andrew Sullivan is in an uproar because he sent two emails to the McCain campaign asking questions, and the McCain campaign shopped those emails around until Howard Kurtz wrote a column about them. Why are Andrew Sullivan's questions notable? Because these were the questions:
"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."
""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?"
Sullivan, you might recall, gave this someone-else-bore-Trig story more visibility than any other prominent mainstream blogger I can think of.
Sullivan is upset because (1) the McCain campaign violated "core confidentiality of private good-faith questions" and (2) they ought to answer a factual question with a factual answer.
This, of course, is nonsense. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in an unsolicited email unless (1) privacy is explicitly assured or (2) the relationship generates an expectation of privacy (as in an email from a prospective client seeking a lawyer, for example). There is definitely no reasonable expectation of privacy in anything communicated to a political campaign. And there is the opposite of an expectation of privacy when a strong critic of a political campaign writes that campaign asking nutty questions. These questions are surely nutty; the fact that they are "factual" and that answers would be "factual" does not alter that. I could write the Obama campaign and ask whether or not it is true that Obama molests squirrels and it would be equally "factual," and would be met with equal contempt.
The McCain campaign saw this as an opportunity to portray Sullivan as off the deep end, a portrayal with which Sullivan is cooperating vigorously. I say that as someone who likes and admires Sullivan and abhors Palin.
Also, referring to yourself as the "most popular" anything is a sure sign that you need to be taken down a few notches.
Last 5 posts by Ken White
- Satire vs. Potentially Defamatory Factual Statements: An Illustration - September 2nd, 2015
- Patterico Prevails: Vexatious Legal Attack on Speech Fails - September 2nd, 2015
- Prior Restraint of Daily Iberian More Outrageous Than We Feared - August 31st, 2015
- Louisiana Judge Issues Ludicrously Lawless Takedown Order To Newspaper - August 27th, 2015
- Lawyer Threatens Yelp Reviewer With Lawsuit, Is Wrong - August 25th, 2015