Ana Marie Cox: Here Is My Review of Sarah Palin’s Book, Which I Have Not Read
I cannot claim to have completely read Ana Marie Cox’s entire review of Sarah Palin’s new book. I stopped cold when I read this line:
I cannot claim to have completely read “Going Rogue” — I had to skim the last 150 pages (or more than one-third). I only got the thing into my hands late Monday afternoon with a deadline of early evening.
I had to skim the rest of Cox’s five-paragraph “review.” Something about smoking, I think.
UPDATE: Unlike the “review,” the comments are worth reading. They absolutely savage Cox.
The Washington Post has a lot taken to slumming it lately.
happyfeet (b919e7) — 11/17/2009 @ 9:10 pmI got that 4.95 deal or whatever off your side-bar before it was published. I have not received the book yet. But I already heard enough about the book to know I support it. đ And I still have to figure out how to write a review of a book without giving out overmuch info, never done it before. But I gotta read the book before I review it, so, hurry up, postman! (Or is it buster brown delivering them?)
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/17/2009 @ 9:12 pmWonkette, the lover of assf*cking, has been pushing her Palin hate on MadCow’s show for ages. They were talking about the book last week. Heaven forbid she read the damn thing.
Sarah Palin will be in my town Thursday night for a signing. I will not be there.
JD (9769aa) — 11/17/2009 @ 9:13 pm“Instead of supporting [a ban] . . . I just stopped going to the restaurant. It eventually went smoke-free on its own, which is the way things like that should work.”
Hard to argue with that. And very policy driven to boot.
Alta Bob (e8af2b) — 11/17/2009 @ 9:17 pmAt least she was honest enough to note that the gaps in her knowledge are big enough for Rosie O’Lard to walk through.
JD (9769aa) — 11/17/2009 @ 9:21 pmFrigging KABC-TV news decided that the real story was not that the book debuted as a mega-seller. Oh, noooo. The real story is that the publisher has decided to discount the book. Those ABC tools teased the stew out of it across two newscasts, too.
Funny, I don;t recall similar stories about Speaker wright’s book bombing, or Al’s, or Daschle’s, or Edwards’, or HRC’s, and on and on.
Ed from SFV (1333b1) — 11/17/2009 @ 9:34 pmWow. Get paid to review a book you don’t even have to read?
Great work if you can get it.
Cox is so easily dismissed, but the WaPo? Tsk, tsk.
Dana (e9ba20) — 11/17/2009 @ 9:43 pmI think I’ll review the book tomorrow. My copy won’t actually arrive until Thursday but this has inspired me to go ahead anyway.
DRJ (dee47d) — 11/17/2009 @ 10:04 pmDRJ – I reviewed it last week.
daleyrocks (718861) — 11/17/2009 @ 10:10 pmPost office has my copy so you know how that goes. Think I’ll order 25 more and use as ‘Christmas’ presents to every O’Dumbo loving democrat I know. Wait, I’ll have 20 copies left over.
“Do you really need that Obama sticker on your car to prove you’re stupid’?
Pray for Obama (Psalm 109:8)
Scrapiron (4e0dda) — 11/17/2009 @ 10:12 pmIt’s 400 and some odd pages long and there’s no index! How can I find out what she wrote about me if there’s no index? It’s impossible.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/17/2009 @ 10:13 pmYou’re always one step ahead of me, daleyrocks.
DRJ (dee47d) — 11/17/2009 @ 10:16 pmI love that the Washington Post published what is essentially a 5th grade book report as a review. The “read a paragraph somewhere in the middle of the book and then write about my own experiences” trick doesn’t really cut it in the real world.
Seriously, critiquing one anecdote regarding smoking laws instead of reading and reviewing the book as a whole is just ridiculous.
Christian (b3503d) — 11/17/2009 @ 10:35 pmChristian – Anna Marie Wonkette could only aspire to be ridiculous.
JD (9769aa) — 11/17/2009 @ 10:40 pm“I love that the Washington Post published what is essentially a 5th grade book report as a review.”
So, lil’ Miss Potty Mouth Wankette finally reached the 5th grade, eh?
Quite an accomplishment.
Dave Surls (5b4b9b) — 11/17/2009 @ 10:59 pmJim Treacher’s been amassing some funny zings for Ana Marie on his Twitter feed, like:
“Haiku is too hard
Can’t come up with a third line” –redinbleustate
“I’ve got your test results right here, Ana Marie. I haven’t had a chance to read the whole thing, but I’m afraid I have some bad news.”
no one you know (196ed7) — 11/18/2009 @ 4:21 amI had to skim the rest of Coxâs five-paragraph âreview.â Something about smoking, I think.
Heh. Yeah, really substantive review. The woman was a governor and vice-presidential candidate and the reviewer’s perseverating on smoking – 193 words out of a 378-word review, to be exact. The condescension drips from every word.
Go read the savaging she’s getting in comments at the link – hilarious.
no one you know (196ed7) — 11/18/2009 @ 4:27 amI kept looking for the rest of the article. That’s what passes as a Washington Post book review?
Pathetic. On so many levels.
em (11cf60) — 11/18/2009 @ 4:45 amAgain, no wonder the WaPo and it’s ilk are dying. They want me to pay for this, when I can get it free and of higher quality on ThinkProgress or DailyKos?
Techie (482700) — 11/18/2009 @ 5:06 am#17 – the comments on the link are blistering. Enough, I think, that the Washington Post must respond in some way. They’ve lost enough credibility as it is.
Corwin (ea9428) — 11/18/2009 @ 5:22 amBy empirical standards I am an educated “elite” but I am profoundly bothered by the Cox, David Brooks of the world and their view of Sarah Palin.
While I personally do not find her to be intellectual enough for me I do find her approach to governing to be effective and her core principles in line with running good government. It is for that reason I would vote for her.
Most liberals and country club republicans like Brooks mistake being a good leader with being a fantastic cocktail party guest. To me this explains 95% of Obama’s non-black support. He passes the “who would I rather spend 10 hours stuck at an airport with.” Sarah does not for most elites.
Unfortunately, as an individual tasked with leading people I recognize that Cocktail Party standard many hold Palin too makes no difference. In leading, simplicity and clarity matter more than intellect and nuance. Most people don’t respond to the Obama approach. They do to Palin.
This book review, and most of critiques, simply miss the big picture because they are so enamored with “faux-intellect” that comes from knowing lots about data but drawing no simplifying conclusions from it to move ahead in life.
Don’t want to have lunch with her, but she’d make for the type of POTUS we need right now. Someone who has CHARACTER and GOOD VALUES who while not perfect would lead in the right direction.
Our current excrement in the White House is quite bright but all wrong …. and the results are pouring in proving so.
HeavenSent (01a566) — 11/18/2009 @ 5:42 amMy copy arrives Thursday, or so Amazon tells me.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/18/2009 @ 5:50 amWhile I personally do not find her to be intellectual enough for me I do find her approach to governing to be effective and her core principles in line with running good government. It is for that reason I would vote for her.
Well said. I’d add that an honest non-intellectual is better than a shallow pseudointellectual like Obama.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/18/2009 @ 5:59 am“He passes the âwho would I rather spend 10 hours stuck at an airport with.â Sarah does not for most elites.”
It’s official, I’m no elite. I’m confident I’d throw myself in front of the first baggage handler cart I could find after 10 minutes with Mr. President.
Blah blah me blah blah blah I…
Em (11cf60) — 11/18/2009 @ 6:08 amI got my copy yesterday and have read the first couple of chapters so far. She has had an amazing life. The story of her childhood is really interesting. I just got to the part where she met Todd. He was 16 and already had his own car and truck to haul his snowmobiles. He had earned all the money himself and she writes that he earned as much money on one fishing trip, as a 16 year old, as many earned in a year.
Having said that, the book is not well written. There is lots of talk about the ghost writer and, if true, she did not get her money’s worth. Far too many adjectives and florid prose. It mars the book but the story almost tells itself.
Mike K (2cf494) — 11/18/2009 @ 6:44 amMike,
Corwin (ea9428) — 11/18/2009 @ 6:52 amNow that is a good start to a review. Submit your resume to WaPo.
I don’t want her to run or to campaign for the GOP candidates in next year’s elections – I just want her to keep raking in the bucks, and keep driving the snooty – nosed “elites” insane with their paradoxisms of rage every time the woman says or does literally anything these days.
Success is always the best revenge, and she’s serving a dish best served cold. Go, Sarah.
Dmac (a964d5) — 11/18/2009 @ 7:02 amI have not read the entire book, the review of the book or your post about not reading the entire book before reviewing it, but I have very important opinions about all of it. But I’ve run out of time!
dfbaskwill (aabf1f) — 11/18/2009 @ 7:14 am(Can you believe what passes for journalism these days. I hope she will be paid for her partial work with appropriate partial pay.)
Isn’t there a quote which can be paraphrased as “It is better to make some decision and act on it rather than delay and ponder until it is too late”?
Sabba Hillel (153338) — 11/18/2009 @ 7:22 amUm, Heavensent, I don’t mean to quibble….but…
I earned my PhD from Stanford University. I have been a research scientist at both RO1 institutions and institutes, an administrator in the biotechnology industry, and returned to academia. Thus, I have worked around the “academic elite” (which is a misnomer in so many ways) all of my adult life.
And the most important thing I have learned is that people are just people. Some of the most unpleasant people I have ever met have been Nobel Prize winners and truly fantastic scientists. Being a “non-elite” doesn’t make one a great gal or guy, don’t get me wrong. But generally speaking, folks in the “elite” are the people no one wanted on their fourth grade kickball team. And it shows.
You say you “don’t want to have lunch” with Palin. Based on what you see on television? This is like me saying I don’t want to have lunch with an actor—all I see is what the media shows me about that person. And considering how the MSM insists on portraying Sarah Palin, I don’t think any of us can say we know her well enough to make any kind of judgement of what she is like one-on-one.
Friends of mine who have met her personally really liked her, but that is their opinion and experience. Me, I haven’t met her one-on-one.
This reminds me VERY strongly of the same faux-elites who sneered at Ronald Reagan (some of whom, I would point out, now think of RR as a truly great man). In the past, I attended plenty of academic cocktail parties where the guests would carry on about how they “hate” RR, that he was “a senile idiot,” a “warmongering religious fanatic,” and so forth.
Now we have some people on the Left and Right having a sneer-off about this woman.
You don’t like her policies, great. I’m not sure she would be the best choice for President, either. But the way that the press and the “elites” act? Well, it gives me pause. Anytime I nod my head and agree with David Brooks, well, I want to really reconsider my position.
But that doesn’t mean that Brooks can’t be a great person on a one-on-one level.
Personally, I think it would be interesting to have lunch with Sarah Palin. And that doesn’t mean I would vote for her to be President.
Eric Blair (bc43a4) — 11/18/2009 @ 7:44 amI agree with Mike about the flowery adjectives. It’s distracting. I only read the first few pages on Amazon.com, and I expect the book is a great story, but I think the language is a little bit silly.
Not a big deal. I wonder if Palin could have written this without a co-author. It’s a shame no one does that, but at least she was honest, unlike some presidential aspirants.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/18/2009 @ 7:44 aman obama bumper sticker is not the only way one can prove that they are stupid, but it is convincing evidence.
clyde (8855de) — 11/18/2009 @ 7:47 amMrs. Palin will be at a book-signing here (Cincinnati) on Friday. I’ve tried to talk my wife into going (so my wife could give Sarah her book) and get a signed copy for me. But my wife doesn’t have a good opinion of Palin; and has other plans. I’ve considered taking off work – but that’s hard to justify.
I hope she rakes in many a million over the next few years.
Corwin (ea9428) — 11/18/2009 @ 8:04 amCorwin – She is stopping in my town the night before yours. I will not be in attendance, but wish her success. Still ambivalent.
JD (aad7c1) — 11/18/2009 @ 8:10 am[object TextRange]
Jim Treacher (796deb) — 11/18/2009 @ 8:25 amIs referring to that idiot Wonkette and being seemingly incapable of not mentioning her love for taking it in the out door the same as Olby and the rest being unable to refer to tea partiers as anything other than teabaggers? So she likes anal sex, whoop dee doo.
chaos (7ec2b0) — 11/18/2009 @ 8:32 amThose of us who followed politics for many years as liberal Democrats have a peculiar perspective on the efficiency of the liberal attack machine that is currently targeting Sarah Palin. Liberals attacked Whitaker Chambers for revealing that Alger Hiss, a high FDR State Department official, had been a fellow Soviet espionage agent. Nixon was attacked early on for his anti-communism. J. Edgar Hoover headed the FBI and was a favorite liberal target. In 1964 LBJ targeted Goldwater with the daisy ad that suggested the conservative would blow up the world. Dan Quayle misspelled potato and paid the price- he was just another conservative simpleton. In later years any “person of color” who wandered off the Democrat plantation was a target- Clarence Thomas and Alberto Gonzalez come to mind. Palin is a white women and a member of a constituency that liberals believe belongs to them. Her very existence enfuriates liberals who so often crow about their tolerance. In the liberal enclave where I spent much of my life, Republicans were considered uneducated, intolerant racists. I am a conservative and try mightily to stick to facts and facts only to guide me in making political judgments. That’s where conservatives are superior to liberals.
mhr (cfa831) — 11/18/2009 @ 8:43 amAh the Wonkette. What a piece of work. I don’t care one whit about her sexual preferences or practices. She’s a true airhead. But she wrote the original Wonkette column which was about as snarky and stupid a piece as this particular book review. Sort of like a high school girl’s breathless report on wo did what with whom–or maybe what–after the party last Friday night. Suffice to say that when she gave the column up, I understand she was replaced as the writer by a man–who was able to continue the snarky high school girl’s breathless report style.
If Gertrude Stein were still alive she could look at the Wonkette (either one, male or female) and accurately deliver the observation that there really was “no there there”.
Mike Myers (710e8b) — 11/18/2009 @ 9:10 amI’m still reading the Palin book and either the prose is improving or I’m getting used to it. She has still had an amazing life and it rings true. It’s funny that I was in Wasilla in 1992 with all my kids and met a number of people but don’t remember her. She was elected to the city council that year. The following year, I stayed in a bed and breakfast in Wasilla. Her biography is good. I haven’t gotten to the political stuff yet.
I don’t understand the “five colleges” story. She went to the U of Hawaii the first year. Hawaii is a huge vacation spot for Alaskans. Alaska Airlines has nonstops from Anchorage every day, especially in winter. Then she decided she had better stay closer to home and study more. She went to U of Idaho. I had a girlfriend at U of I in the late 50s. It’s a neat campus and, because of the weather, the activities tend to be all in one big building, the SUB. She graduated in five years. What was the big deal about her college story ?
Todd went to different college in Washington to play basketball. She doesn’t say so but high school basketball is the biggest activity in Alaska in winter. It’s like high school football in Texas. It is huge, even in native villages around Nome.
MIke K (2cf494) — 11/18/2009 @ 9:13 ammhr : Nice post except for one thing – Dan Quale never mispelled potato. As someone who was drafted, along with five other seniors, by my high school principal to assist the grammar school principal in preparing to host a local spelling bee, I had the occassion to read the National Spelling Bee Rules phamplet. The rules required that the contestant spell the word as it appeared on the prepared card. The card given to Quale had the word spelled as potatoe. He was not allowed to substitute his own judgement. The contestant had to spell the word potatoe or be called wrong. Quale gave a hint, legally allowed onder the rules, that the alternate spelling was sought and the contestant, not being as dumb as the teacher who prepared the card, gave the English variation – potatoe. Otherwise, Quale, under the rules would have had to call the contestant wrong. Of course, Quale, after calling the answer wrong, would have appealed the answer to the judges who would have reversed the call. However, the intellectial idiots in the media as well as the late night comedians, being willfully ignorant of the rules, would still have a field day at Quale’s expense.
Longwalker (996c34) — 11/18/2009 @ 9:24 am#20 I believe you are correct. Wapo is going to have to do something about this…there are too many angry comments. She’ll probably read the whole book and claim her conclusions correct.
My favorite comment? The one trying to solve the hypothetical waitress problem.
Audacity (2fd5ad) — 11/18/2009 @ 9:47 amSnarky photo link
Those comments at WaPo are awesome. Audacity picked a great one.
carlitos (1d21c9) — 11/18/2009 @ 10:07 amSnarkier photo link
carlitos (1d21c9) — 11/18/2009 @ 10:07 am@chaos People always mention Wonkette’s proclivity because that’s how Wonkette got where she is. She was a mediocre gossip columnist who differentiated herself from the crowd with her frequent declarations of love for the rump bump. That’s her claim to fame. That’s her raison d’etre. That’s the girl that brought her to the dance, so now she’s being made to dance with her. It’s not immaterial because it’s probably the only reason she has her job.
bonhomme (8b73ba) — 11/18/2009 @ 10:20 amI haven’t seen her face but maybe that was her only choice at intimacy, if you know what I mean.
MIke K (2cf494) — 11/18/2009 @ 10:27 amChaos, I think Olbermann’s insistence on referring to millions of mainstream protestors as ‘teabaggers’ is dishonest, rude, and shows deep biggotry.
Referring to Cox for her sexual writings is honest, fair, and shows an understanding of what her career is about: shocking people. She isn’t a serious opinion writer, and she won’t give a fair policy analysis of what Palin proposes in her policy oriented book. Cox needed to get our attention, so she claimed she didn’t read the book she is complaining about. It’s simply worthwhile to note that we’re not dealing with a serious critique, and the anal sex discussion, while unfortunate, is apt.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/18/2009 @ 10:31 amI also watched the Oprah interview, and noticed that as soon as Palin began to discuss policy, Oprah would bring up another tabloid issue.
Oprah wasn’t unfriendly, and really wasn’t unfair, but it was clear that this interview could not become a serious discussion about Palin’s proposals. The democrats want Palin to be defined by the kind of stuff they ignore about other politicians. Hillary and Obama have many worse tabloid issues, such as Obama’s coke-habit in his memoirs. But Oprah would never bring that up.
I also noticed that Oprah asked a few sexist questions, but always surrounded it with ‘I think this is a valid question’ language, to force Palin to answer it or appear to personally attack Oprah. One of these questions was ‘how can a mother be president?’ She never asked Obama how a father could be president, because, in Oprah’s words ‘9.9 times out of 10, the woman has more responsibilities inside the household’. If Hannity said that to Hillary, I would say he went far beyond his already ridiculous partisanship. Oprah was being a total sexist tool.
Cox has to talk about something like smoking because it’s the only way to avoid the serious policy views that Palin wants to discuss… views that make her a solid competitor.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/18/2009 @ 10:39 amCox must be a union hack. She did an incomplete and shoddy job, yet got full pay and benefits.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 11/18/2009 @ 11:16 amOne thing I noticed about the Oprah interview. Frank Luntz was on Hannity and he pointed out that closeups on TV are a technique of making the person being interviewed less sympathetic. He then showed examples and I think it was deliberate.
It’s been slow today so I am now at about 100 pages in the book. She has just resigned from the Oil and Gas Commission. her stories of small town politics are exactly as I have seen it in local politics. She says she read every line of the budget. We had just such a council woman in Mission Viejo. She was always finding odd little items in the city check register. She was hated and finally took so much abuse from other council members and the staff that she didn’t run for another term, which would have been her third. I could see her face as I read that section of Palin’s book. I hope she reads it.
Mike K (2cf494) — 11/18/2009 @ 12:33 pm“Referring to Cox for her sexual writings is honest, fair, and shows an understanding of what her career is about: shocking people. She isnât a serious opinion writer, and she wonât give a fair policy analysis of what Palin proposes in her policy oriented book. Cox needed to get our attention, so she claimed she didnât read the book she is complaining about. Itâs simply worthwhile to note that weâre not dealing with a serious critique, and the anal sex discussion, while unfortunate, is apt.”
I don’t think it is. I think it’s a cheap shot that has nothing to do with anything. If you want to show that Cox is a stupid, small woman, you have literally hundreds of examples without having to resort to making jokes about what she likes to do in the bedroom.
“People always mention Wonketteâs proclivity because thatâs how Wonkette got where she is. She was a mediocre gossip columnist who differentiated herself from the crowd with her frequent declarations of love for the rump bump. Thatâs her claim to fame. Thatâs her raison dâetre. Thatâs the girl that brought her to the dance, so now sheâs being made to dance with her. Itâs not immaterial because itâs probably the only reason she has her job.”
It’s completely immaterial. Has nothing to do with anything. Just a way to get a cheap sexual shot in at her. She could get a sexual thrill out of shoving raisins up her nose and no one would care about it because it would be too strange to be used as a way to insult her, but buttsex, now that’s something common enough and distasteful enough to some to bring up again and again and again when talking about someone we don’t like.
I agree entirely that Wonkette is a crude pinhead who enjoys entirely too much indulging in her crudity, but that doesn’t mean I have to enjoy reading that she likes it up the butt every damn time she gets mentioned by someone who doesn’t like her. I really don’t care. I could tell she was a moron the first I read her page. I don’t need to be reminded over and over about her sexual likes and dislikes in order to form a judgment about her being a moron. Whenever I see someone talk about her, it isn’t “Oh well she is crude and always talks about her sex life and makes crude sexual remarks and comparisons and such,” it’s “Wonkette buttsex.” Only when defending your insult do you say “well she talks about it!”
chaos (9c54c6) — 11/18/2009 @ 1:20 pm#30, Eric, what is the point of disagreement?
I don’t find Palin interesting but I do find her to be qualified for Office. I would vote for her b/c I believe in what she believes in and she seems like a stick-to-it type of person.
Simple distinction between a person I find intellectually stimulating and someone I don’t. Herr Obama and Clinton must be a blast at cocktail parties but I wouldn’t trust them with my friends’ wallet.
HeavenSent (01a566) — 11/18/2009 @ 1:33 pm#30 and the rarified air of Stanford reeks with limo liberals. Hated my time there and so did my wife. Beautiful weather however.
HeavenSent (01a566) — 11/18/2009 @ 1:34 pmchaos,
You know, I don’t care that Wonkette is a woman, or that she’s stupid. I care that she tried to shock her audience. The anal sex article that I haven’t actually referred to at all was a great example of how she does this.
Why is it that Cox can point out anything she wants about Palin, but I can’t point out anything I want about cox? After all, we aren’t prying into her private life. She told her story about anal sex to the entire country. She thought it was a good idea to do this. It’s now fair game, except you don’t like it for some reason. If you really don’t think this person’s resume should include that entry, you should complain to her… she’s the one who put it there, and it will forever be her most important work.
Sorry, it’s not even an insult… it’s simply what she writes about. She’s not a serious journalist or policy analyst. The Palin article is a better example of this than her anal sex article, but the anal sex article was dreadful in answering the real questions about that particular practice.
Wonkette wants attention. She’s Marylin Manson in print. She’s Perez Hilton. Why should I care what parts of her embarrassed vita you think aren’t good to read about?
Do you REALLY think she didn’t write this Palin article specifically to provoke as much reaction and attention as possible? This is what she wanted. This is what Ozzy wanted when he bit that bat’s head off and peed on the Alamo. This is what these people are all about. Yes, it is sordid. But your re-characterization of what I’m saying betrays the truth… and the truth hurts.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/18/2009 @ 1:59 pmCarlitos – There is a hint of nip in that second link. You are a bad bad man.
Why does MadCow call her Onna instead of Anna ?
JD (d606fc) — 11/18/2009 @ 2:03 pmIf you want to show that Cox is a stupid, small woman, you have literally hundreds of examples without having to resort to making jokes about what she likes to do in the bedroom.
Except that she made her bones entirely based on this proclivity to discuss her private sex life ad nauseum, so what was your point again?
Itâs completely immaterial. Has nothing to do with anything
Right – and her assinine “review” was based on…what, exactly? Something other than as a completely immaterial source? Which has nothing to do with the subject at hand, yes?
What was your point again?
but that doesnât mean I have to enjoy reading that she likes it up the butt every damn time she gets mentioned by someone who doesnât like her. I really donât care
Either do we – do you actually think any of us here gives a rat’s -ss about what she has to say about anything? However, anal sex is just about part and parcel of what she does deign to discuss in so much of her work, so why not take up her content – free and inane tendency to write about her sexual peccadillos up with the author herself?
The first rule of holes is – stop digging. You’re about halfway to Peking at this point.
Dmac (a964d5) — 11/18/2009 @ 2:11 pm“Why is it that Cox can point out anything she wants about Palin, but I canât point out anything I want about cox?”
I don’t know why it’s that way, find someone who thinks that way and ask them.
“Yes, it is sordid. But your re-characterization of what Iâm saying betrays the truth⌠and the truth hurts.”
What truth am I betraying here? That it’s okay to attack someone you disagree with and dislike with casual, juvenile sexual remarks? I thought that was Wonkette’s game, so why are you playing it?
I don’t care that it’s “sordid,” either. What it is is juvenile and that’s my problem with it. You’re not attacking her credibility by pointing out that she tries to gain attention by making allegedly shocking parts of her sex life public and enjoys making crude sexual remarks about others, you’re attacking her credibility because of the sexual acts she indulges in. There’s a difference between the two.
chaos (9c54c6) — 11/18/2009 @ 2:14 pmThat is exactly what I intend to do every time I make a snarky comment about Wonkette.
JD (d606fc) — 11/18/2009 @ 2:18 pmAMC and AS must have wonderful, insightful conversations.
AD - RtR/OS! (1397fe) — 11/18/2009 @ 2:20 pmOh, Ana. “I’m two-thirds done and have a deadline so I’ll hand it in.” The Wonkette’s work ethic is increasingly common these days. A little less face time on MSNBC and/or other venues and you might have finished your homework.
The image Sarah Palin now labels ‘sexist’– the photo Ms. Palin willing posed for and currently on a Newsweek cover– may very well be technically in ‘violation’ of the U.S. flag code. But then, it’s all about her, isn’t it. Kudos to the grandma from Wasilla with a media savvy that displays the marketing skills to know her audience rivalling Rushbo. Get that talk show! You go, girl!– All the way to the bank!
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 11/18/2009 @ 2:31 pmSTFU, IMP
JD (d606fc) — 11/18/2009 @ 2:35 pm“grandma from Wasilla” — No sexism/agism there from the troll!
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (2f45e8) — 11/18/2009 @ 2:47 pmI can’t imagine that she could have read even a fifth of the book, and have that kind of reaction, or maybe she did and she has to make up for the slime she’s been writing about her for a year. Palin is very religious, but very pragmatic
bishop (274dd7) — 11/18/2009 @ 2:49 pmon a host of issues. Very common sense, much more
a public citizen, in the way we say we want, but
then turn away for puffed up shams and charlatans
I don’t see how the (obviously) sexist Newsweek cover was in violation of the flag code. Doesn’t make any sense that DCSCA would spend most of his comment on a topic no one has brought up and has nothing to do with the thread, either.
The left wants sexism and racism directed as republicans to be called whining. They used to claim these were serious matters that applied to us all, but now… no, it’s whining and unjustified… women and minorities should just toughen up and deal with it. The common factor: whatever helps the (D)s get and keep as much power as possible. That’s why they killed MLK and Abe Lincoln and hate equality.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/18/2009 @ 3:08 pm“the photo Ms. Palin willing posed for and currently on a Newsweek cover”
Comment by DCSCA
D- too bad you did not have access to the 11 reporters given the job of fact-checking Palin’s book. If so, you may have learned that the picture on Newsweek was “willingly posed” for an article in “Runner’s World” magazine, (and no permission requested by or given to Newsweek) which is what it sounds like, and it was about her enjoyment of distance running. Very appropriate, moreso than pictures of the one showing off his pectorals in my opinion.
But, from my observations, checking facts and being accurate was not necessarily a priority with you, apparently in good keeping with Ms. Cox.
MD in Philly (227f9c) — 11/18/2009 @ 3:33 pmI’m more than halfway through the book now (Yes, it’s slow today) and have not yet gotten to the McCain story. That means that most of the book is about her life and her career. There is a lot of detail about oil and gas policy so I don’t get the snarks about there being no substance. I am also not annoyed by the prose now so it improved or I got used to it. The middle third sounds like Sarah wrote it so it may be the ghost writer screwing up the early sections.
I’ll do an Amazon review when I finish (Unlike some reviewers) and won’t repeat it here. The troll’s comment about the Newsweak cover doesn’t seem to get that the subject of that photo was a 45 year old governor who ran in marathons. Newsweak did not get permission from Runners World to use the photo and there may be a copyright issue.
That’s why she complained and, so far, she is describing a world that I am familiar with, which is one reason why I have never wanted to run for office.
Mike K (2cf494) — 11/18/2009 @ 3:34 pm#64- Hmmmm. It is a ‘matter of fact’ that the photo Ms. Palin now labels ‘sexist,’ “Ms. Palin willingly posed for [is] currently on a Newsweek cover.” The fact it was originally taken for Runner’s World is relatively old news in the 24/7 news universe but no secret. Too bad the time and type of camera used to capture the image is unclear as is the manufacturerer of the flag draped on a chair Ms. Palin is leaning on. But since you are keen on it, Brian Adams, the photographer who took the photo for Runner’s World, seemingly has violated his contract by reselling them to Newsweek.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 11/18/2009 @ 4:23 pmMore importantly, what does Gunga Dan think about all this? You know him on an intimate basis, yes? From your days working at Black Rock? What’s Andy Rooney like?
Dmac (a964d5) — 11/18/2009 @ 4:28 pmDCSCA – Please cite the violation of the flag code for the rubes here since you brought it up.
Also, what does the time and type of camera used to capture the image have to do with anything?
daleyrocks (718861) — 11/18/2009 @ 4:50 pmShe didn’t get the name Cox for nothing, you know.
drjohn (488550) — 11/18/2009 @ 4:53 pmThe WaPo comments are hilarious
drjohn (488550) — 11/18/2009 @ 4:53 pmIt’s misdirection (the camera crap). It’s also misdirection to say that the photographer betrayed Ms Palin, instead of the media apparatus he is part of.
But no one really cares about any of that. They know that a runner’s world photo like that is kinda cool, and a Newsweek cover like that is sexist, and that the democrat reaction to this obvious reality is ‘Hey, look over there!’
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/18/2009 @ 4:54 pm#68- “Rubes?” That’s an interesting characterization of your fellow commenters, considering the credentials some have aledged. You can read the code for yourself on the web.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 11/18/2009 @ 4:58 pmDCSCA is off on a flight to somewhere the rest of us can’t go. I think it a fair criticism that a photo done for a purpose, promoting running in older women, is being used for a totally unrelated purpose by a hostile press, trying to make Sarah Palin look like a bimbo. They are even trying to say that because she wore shorts as a high school basketball player, she cannot complain about showing her in them as a 45 year old. Fortunately, she still looks terrific, no doubt a source of annoyance to hundreds of homely women who couldn’t run a block and who hate her political ideas.
She is derided because she worked her way through college and entered a beauty contest for a scholarship. Most of this is elite condescension toward people who have always worked for a living.
I’m about 260 pages into the book and she still hasn’t said a nasty word about anybody. Interesting to see what others say on much less exposure to the book.
Mike K (2cf494) — 11/18/2009 @ 4:58 pm“That itâs okay to attack someone you disagree with and dislike with casual, juvenile sexual remarks? I thought that was Wonketteâs game, so why are you playing it.”
chaos – Because what Wonkette does is juvenile and sometimes it’s fun to descend to her level. If that pisses you off, nobody is requiring you to stay here.
daleyrocks (718861) — 11/18/2009 @ 5:01 pmI think ‘rubes’ was sarcastically noting DCSCA’s attempt to con everyone.
It’s not a violation of the flag code to take a picture of a flag that isn’t on a pole. It’s nothing like Obama’s creation of his own campaign seals on fake offices and dumb use of the flag like that… then again, he doesn’t believe int he flag, remember?
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/18/2009 @ 5:01 pmDustin, you would be right. I held myself back from calling DCSCA a peckerhead. It’s too early.
daleyrocks (718861) — 11/18/2009 @ 5:05 pmDCSCA has had a good result in steering attention away from the fact that the Washington Post, the left’s very best, most prestigious authority, reviewed Palin’s book with the utmost hostility and without reading the book.
That’s the point of his efforts: make conservatives defend Palin for random flag code crap, or focus on newsweek’s awful treatment, instead of focusing on proof that the left has absolutely nothing nothing nothing on Palin at this time, despite having a huge book they could look through to find some flaw in her reasoning.
What a colossal failure of the entire left to destroy Palin. But kudos to DCSCA for an excellent distraction.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/18/2009 @ 5:22 pmThe comments about Cox and her 2/3’s review at the WaPo are hysterical. Maybe I am easily amused but the guy who called her Anal Marie made me laugh out loud.
BT (74cbec) — 11/18/2009 @ 5:32 pmI loves me some good outrage and vitriol, and the comments section following Cox’s review were a heaping helping of it.
Rob (c7293d) — 11/18/2009 @ 5:53 pmPalin’s book was waiting for me when I got home about 15 minutes ago. So that’s going to be my evening, and probably the next day or two.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/18/2009 @ 7:12 pmDustin, you can’t say “bad faith” without IMP.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/18/2009 @ 7:20 pmLeave DiCSuCkA alone.
Jim Treacher (796deb) — 11/19/2009 @ 2:09 am[…] (h/t) […]
LOL – Even God wants Obama out of office « A Conservative Shemale (b093c9) — 11/19/2009 @ 6:07 amI’m halfway through the book. Just finished reading about Palin’s struggle to make ExxonMobil drill on its lease. That, and the other descriptions of her governing style, are interesting. She has no illusions about Big Oil, but found an effective way to make the industry act in Alaska’s best interest. I had no idea there was that much natural gas there.
As Mike K. noted, there’s too much florid prose and imagery — And too much God-talk for this atheist’s preference — but you can get past that to the story there. The description of what it’s like to live in Alaska is fascinating.
The narrative is up to 2007, so I expect soon she’ll get to McCain and the campaign. Too bad Cox and the other MSM types are so concerned with proving their cleverness they’ve ignored the book.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/19/2009 @ 6:45 amTreacher is Da Man.
JD (d606fc) — 11/19/2009 @ 6:52 amSure, ya could, but why would ya?
ShelbyC (72b728) — 11/19/2009 @ 12:05 pmLate to this thread but IIRC the anal sex revelations Ms. Cox wrote about back when she became such a celebrity were not her own. IIRC the antics were the actions of a young lady who blogged anonymously as “The Washingtonian”. (She is the second girl (the brunette) in carlitos’ links in comments 42 and 43.)
She was a Senatorial aide who was providing the favors on a semiproffesional basis. (Semi-pro as in you paid her $400 and she pretended she was not a prostiture.)
Have Blue (854a6e) — 11/19/2009 @ 11:33 pm[…] the day it was available. I won’t be reviewing it tonight, because unlike Ana Marie Cox, who defrauded the Washington Post and its readers with a review wherein she admits to not having read a third of the book, I fully intend to read […]
On politics and the personality that is Sarah Palin | One Fine Jay (c2f5e5) — 12/1/2009 @ 3:41 pm