Washington Post demolishes Sarah Palin.

Hrm…a post about Sarah Palin.  Do I tag it as “politics” or “humor”?

Sarah Palin has a habit of poking the “mainstream media” to appeal to her fan base, which tends to blame a news outlet when Sarah Palin crashes and burns in an interview with them – as she is wont to do.

This last weekend was no exception when Palin targeted the Washington Post:

The public knows about President Obama’s incompetence, Palin added, but it would be “well-served” if the media would use its resources to uncover the truth regarding “Team Obama.”

The Washington Post decided to poke back with the literary equivalent of a crowbar:

Hello Ms. Palin: We all know from your famous interview with Katie Couric that you’re not much of a reader of newspapers and magazines. When asked to name a specific one, you said, “I’ve read most of them, again, with a great appreciation for the press, for the media.” When pressed to name one, you said, “All of ‘em, any of ‘em that have been in front of me over all these years.” Pressed again, you said, “I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news…”

Now you’re showing some evidence that you’ve read The Washington Post, circa the early 1970s. In a recent Facebook post, you demonstrate some familiarity with this newspaper’s Watergate coverage, in an appeal to The Post’s current editors: “I challenge you to engage in the same aggressive investigative journalism you courageously employed 42 years ago covering President Nixon.”
You say, “The list of Obama abuses and impeachable offenses is long.”

But you say that The Post has “fallen like a lead balloon” and that “Those running the Washington Post’s show now, compared to those during the Nixon era, are too afraid of being uninvited to the permanent political class’ cocktail parties and petty gossip fests, making you all a bunch of wusses.”

Way to blast that Washington Post!

One problem, though: The post in which you blast the Washington Post sits about ten posts above this July 20 Facebook post of yours, which starts with these words:

Obama Knew of Border “Crisis” Prior to Reelection; Lied About That, Too!

The Washington Post has a bombshell article out about how “top officials at the White House and the State Department had repeatedly been warned of the potential for a further explosion in the number of migrant children since the crisis began escalating two years ago.”

Bold text added to note a contradiction in your timeline. In one Facebook post, you’re calling The Post wussies, and in an earlier one, you’re crediting its reporting for exposing a policy failure of the Obama administration. It’s not really a big deal, though. One remedy would be to delete the post that congratulates The Post for its July 19 story on the early warnings about the border crisis. Another remedy would be to amend your Post-slamming post to say something along the lines of: “You’ve fallen like a lead balloon, except for that sweet story last week about how the Obama administration had ample warning of the border crisis, as well as any other Obama administrationcriticalstories thatImissed on account of my documented failure to read newspapers.”

A third approach would be to leave things as they are, on the safe assumption that no one looks to you for consistency anyhow.


"Not very many women could live up to your requirements."

Are you a Christian man? Don’t ..."
"I'll Pray for you. Translation: I'm too dumb to know what you're even talking about ..."

I'll Pray For You
"You certainly have the view of things except no. 1, you can only be a ..."

Alaska man refusing to pay child ..."
"The author on this article understands and breaks things down right! Patricia Douglas is a ..."

Alaska man refusing to pay child ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment