In all honesty, I was initially not planning to buy Sarah Palin’s Going Rogue. It’s a personal trait of mine not to favor biographies or autobiographies/memoirs. I prefer books on political philosophy or events, rather than on an individual person. That’s just me. (One exception: Clarence Thomas’ autobiography My Grandfather's Son; Loved it!)
But I want the leftocracy—with the notable exception of Oprah Winfrey—to know that their continued bashing of this woman compelled me to purchase her book yesterday, and I am reading it with delight.
As the left continues to pound this woman and her new book, rather than do objective reporting, here are some retorts from the right:
Nov. 20, 2009 | National Review Online
Palinophobes Hate First, Ask Questions Later
By Jonah GoldbergSlate magazine is just one of the countless media outlets convulsing with St. Vitus’ Dance over that demonic succubus Sarah Palin. In its reader forum, The Fray, one supposed Palinophobe took dead aim at the former Alaska governor’s writing chops, excerpting the following sentence from her book:
“The apartment was small, with slanting floors and irregular heat and a buzzer downstairs that didn’t work, so that visitors had to call ahead from a pay phone at the corner gas station, where a black Doberman the size of a wolf paced through the night in vigilant patrol, its jaws clamped around an empty beer bottle.”
Other readers pounced like wolf-sized Dobermans on an intruder. One guffawed, “That sentence by Sarah Palin could be entered into the annual Bulwer-Lytton bad writing contest. It could have a chance at winning a (sic) honorable mention, at any rate.”
But soon, the original contributor confessed: “I probably should have mentioned that the sentence quoted above was not written by Sarah Palin. It’s taken from the first paragraph of ‘Dreams From My Father,’ written by Barack Obama.” [Whoops!]
Nov. 20, 2009 | Jewish World Review
Sally Quinn on Sarah Palin — Versus Reality
By David Limbaugh… Of all the screeds I’ve read, I don’t think any are snarkier than The Washington Post’s Sally Quinn’s “On Faith” blog post “Sarah Palin’s ‘rogue’ Christianity.”
Do we need further proof of the secular orientation of our dominant media culture than the fact that Quinn, an avowed atheist, pens the Post’s “On Faith” blog? That would be like featuring a column by Fidel Castro on free enterprise and individual liberties. …
Quinn says: “Sarah Palin writes that one summer at Bible Camp she ‘put my life in my creator’s hands and trust Him as I sought my life’s path.’ For Palin, this grand divine plan was ‘a natural progression.’ She writes. And later, ‘I don’t believe in coincidences.’“
Quinn — convinced she has exposed Palin as confused, conflicted and acutely hypocritical — volleys a series of rhetorical questions designed to reveal Palin’s apparent inconsistency in believing that G0d is in complete control (“I don’t believe in coincidences”) and yet he allows or causes terrible things to happen to people.
Here’s a sampling of Quinn’s ill-informed, sneering arrogance: “Did G0d plan for her to become Governor of Alaska. If so, did G0d plan for her to step down. … Did G0d plan for her to have a huge wardrobe? Then why did she apologize for it? ... Did G0d plan for her daughter Bristol to get pregnant while she was a teenager? Why was she then not thrilled.”
Perhaps Quinn wouldn’t be so smug if she were to do the slightest bit of thinking or reading about the concepts of G0d’s sovereignty and free will — ideas that have challenged the finest minds for 2,000 years and contributed to denominational differences within evangelical Christianity. Has Quinn studied Calvin, Wesley, Luther or any other past or present theologian on these issues? …
Quinn is exercised at Palin for supposedly settling scores in her book and allegedly failing to exhibit the Christian qualities of “love, generosity, mercy and forgiveness.” But it’s my informed guess that Quinn’s contempt for Palin has nothing to do with these false charges or Palin’s alleged hypocrisy or even her theology but is rooted in Palin’s conservative ideology.
November 20, 2009 | Town Hall
Palin-Hating 101
by S. E. Cupp… Newsweek, in advance of Palin’s book release, obviously went for subtlety. Their headline read, “How Do You Solve a Problem Like Sarah? She’s bad news for the GOP—and everybody else, too.” [As opposed to non-problems like the America-hating Barack Obama and his America-hating wife who adorned the cover of Newsweek several times since 2007; or the charlatan Al Gore, whose climate alarmism has made him filthy rich while threatening the prosperity of our nation] Accompanying it was a photo of her in running shorts used in a June 2009 Runner’s World spread. Newsweek’s message was clear: You are not to take this woman seriously. Never mind that Runner’s Week [sic] told me that the photos from that shoot are still under a one-year embargo, and that Newsweek ran the photo without Runner’s World’s knowledge or permission. No biggie. [Typically, when you’re a liberal in the process of a conservative to smear, no rules apply, not morally and not legally. Stay classy, Newsweek.]
On “Hardball,” Chris Matthews, who’s still recovering from that bizarre bout of restless leg syndrome that suddenly befell him last year, actually had the audacity to say of the attention Palin is getting for her book release, “I’ve never seen hype like this.” Apparently, the overwrought sensationalism of the Denver Democratic National Convention, where Obama stood amidst faux White House columns, under fireworks, next to Sheryl Crow and Will.i.am—or “Hype and Change 2008”—is but a distant memory to Matthews.
In another segment, on another night, Matthews and MSNBC reporter Norah O’Donnell decided that the crowd at a Palin book signing was, well, too white. “I think there is a tribal aspect to this thing. In other words, white vs. other people,” said Matthews, ever the sociology scholar.
The leftwing media has long tried to ascribe a scary nativism to Palin, who best described the phenomenon during her recent Oprah interview, when she said that Katie Couric had looked at her like she was part of some kind of nomadic tribe from Alaska. Asking her what she read was like asking her if she read. [If Couric et al. actually read Palin’s book, as I am currently doing, they will find out that Palin was raised on poetry. But, unlike elitist liberals, she doesn’t need to impress anyone by quoting any.]
Others have tried to carefully feign disinterest in the hopes that, much like the flu, disinterest is contagious. The Washington Post published a book review by Ana Marie Cox, in which she smugly “confesses” she didn’t have time to read the entire book, “It’s terrible, I know, but if I didn’t read it all, neither can Sarah Palin claim to have completely written it.” In that one sentence, we know that Cox’s time constraints excuse wasn’t the issue. She simply wanted to be able to write in a book review that Palin’s book didn’t make her to-do list. Her anti-review review is fine for Cox, but what’s the Washington Post’s excuse for publishing it?
Others still have tried to dismiss Palin as some would-be celebrity, who—how dare she?!—had the gumption and considerable bad taste to write a book. And promote it. (Irony alert: Al Gore has his own television network.) …
But we don’t see the liberal press fretting over President Obama’s penchant for self-promotion. They coo when he goes on Letterman to talk about all the cool stuff that happens when you’re president—during a recession and a war. And they applaud his Nobel Peace Prize, for which he was nominated after just 12 days in office. And they rally around his embarrassing Olympic bid, which actually argued that the IOC should choose Chicago so that he and Michelle could stop and see the fam while in their old neighborhood. Obama’s “me, me, me, me, me, me, me” aria is fine. But Palin’s plain-speaking and honest stab at defending herself against her seething critics is schlocky showboating and shameless self-promotion. Please. …
Have a blessed day!
Recent Comments