Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Ouch, Boss!

OK, I probably deserved this shot from Michelle Malkin:
And no, it isn't "playing the victim" to expose their bigotry.
It’s calling them out.
Without naming me, she evidently refers to my post yesterday:
Grant that the editors of Newsweek hate Sarah Palin. We have every reason to believe that the choice of photo of Palin in shorts represented an attempt to diminish and belittle Palin, to portray her as a cheesecake bimbo, the political equivalent of Lindsay Lohan. . . .
That this is "sexist," OK. Gotcha. But does Sarah Palin want to assume a feminist victimhood posture, to say that she is being oppressed by the patriarchy?
Given that I don't like it when people tell me how to frame my response to attacks on me, I suppose that I shouldn't be telling others how to frame their responses to attacks on them. The Golden Rule, in other words.

So if I'm correct that The Boss was aiming that elbow at me, I acknowledge the fault was mine. Mea culpa.

The old rule in the Washington Time newsroom was, "When in doubt, blame McCain." When I resigned last year, I wondered how they'd get along without having me around as the reliable scapegoat.

Answer? Not too good. Not too good at all.


  1. Actually I was most offended when one of your other commentators pointed out that Newsweek cropped out of that photograph the mother service star for her son. That shows how biased and craven these bastards are. Anything to diminish Palin.

    The attacks on Palin are absolutely revealing of the left. It is shows how they operate and how dishonest they really are.

  2. Actually splatchcocking is not a good analogy for what the left is doing to Sarah Palin.

    This is.

  3. Oh, don't worry, mini-Bush: you're still being blamed.

  4. Best comment about the media frenzy over Sarah Palin (from Althouse):

    miller said...

    They are simply frothing at the mouth. Spittle flying everywhere.

    This is one little woman from Alaska on a book tour. They treat her like she's the Rosenbergs.

    (Well, except that they'd probably welcome with open arms the Rosenbergs.)

    11/18/09 4:18 PM

  5. OK. I did not see that other doll picture they put in the rag called Newsweak. Figured it was a hit piece and bother giving them any money for it.

    Yeah that picture is bad and I would call it sexist because it's very demeaning to a woman who has accomplished alot in a short time. I thought they were complaining over the cover. Newsweak can take their BS response about neutral pictures and shove it.

  6. Unfortunately, Joe, the attacks from the Right are pretty damn revealing, too. As Miller wonders, so do I. Why are these Big Powerful Politcal Elites (on both sides) afraid of this woman?

    And they ARE afraid. This kind of spit and venom doesn't come from people who are secure in themselves and don't give a sh*t.