Aren't we supposed to cover what is going on?
I concur entirely with Jonathan Capehart on his polite refusal to take the "no Palin" pledge. He writes:
I have never thought of Palin as the most important conservative politician in America. I would probably give that honor to Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.). I've never thought Palin had a plausible path to the presidency in 2012. Every chance I get I like to point out that folks might like her on television but they don't want her anywhere near the Oval Office. I've never suggested that Palin is a front runner for the nomination primarily because I never thought she was running in the first place. And I haven't jumped at her every tweet and Facebook musing to divine her innermost thoughts.
But I have tried to hold Palin accountable and responsible for some of the things she says, does or writes.
Precisely so. It makes no sense to ignore her, just as it made little sense to obsess over her every move or inflate her to a significance to a degree that bore no resemblance to reality.
Moreover, the pledge, whether made in jest or not, only reinforces the perception that the media methodically distorts (Let's have politics with no Palin! Or a Congress with no John Boehner!) and cherry picks the news rather than cover what is there.
Understandably, after making such a fuss over Palin and throwing all manner of criticism at her, warranted or not, the left blogosphere and liberals in traditional media are tuckered out. But this is a problem of their own making, and it should serve as a cautionary tale about inappropriately vilifying and magnifying a public figure, who for a time served their political ends. Substituting one failure of perspective for another hardly seems a wise course.
By
Jennifer Rubin
| January 25, 2011; 8:25 AM ET
Categories:
Sarah Palin
Save & Share:
Previous: Morning Bits
Next: Republican freshman: Rep. Kristi Noem
Jennifer, why don't you just say what you're obviously thinking: that Dana Milbank is wrong to boycott one of the most powerful conservative voices in the United States and that his stupid "boycott" reflects very, very poorly on the Washington Post, especially considering that Milbank now writes a supposedly serious "opinion" column for the Post's op-ed page. He is hurting the Post and turning it into a partisan cheerleader for Obama (to the degree that it wasn't already).
Posted by: WashingtonDame | January 25, 2011 8:44 AM | Report abuse
I totally agree that worthy newsmakers (on both sides of the Divide) should be given print space. Why are we surrounded by the rantings of an undereducated, somewhat illiterate (in the verses of public policy and world history/events) like Ms. Palin. I think the Post would do Washington and the nation so much good by just leaving her in Alaska to deal with the travails (continuing) of her family for now. Ggive it a rest, please.
Posted by: fairness3 | January 25, 2011 9:48 AM | Report abuse
Media got a fever, Palin fever.
Posted by: Captain_Universe | January 25, 2011 9:50 AM | Report abuse
Jennifer, we don't always disagree. You nailed this one right down the middle of the fairway, 300 + yards.
Posted by: johnmarshall5446 | January 25, 2011 10:59 AM | Report abuse
The "no Palin" campaign just reveals the arrogance of the Democrat media and how they cynically try to control the national conversation. Fortunately, fewer and fewer Americans are paying attention to them.
Posted by: eoniii | January 25, 2011 11:30 AM | Report abuse
As the imbecilic monster created by the latter-day GOP, Mrs Todd Palin deserves maximum coverage. She shows us the real foundation of the Republican party: stupid people (who don’t even pretend to have class, the way Republicans used to pretend in the 1950s and 60s), and people for whom “government” means cheap entertainment and personal bickering. Don’t give the party of ignorance a pass. Don’t let the corporate masters who cull votes of the uninformed masses get away without embarrassing them completely. The idiot class will enjoy reading about its hero, and their owners will cringe . . . and lose elections.
Posted by: SydneyP | January 25, 2011 11:54 AM | Report abuse
Sydney P. writes and labels Palin an "imbecilic monster".
Why ?
She has never committed adultery, never been a KKK member, left someone to die in her car or bankrupted any State or City... like many an establishment politician.
Yet this mother of five, a successful self-made writer/analyst/political leader, and popular former Mayor and Governor... inspires Sydney P. and half the media's vitriol.
Most recently she faced what David Brooks called “vicious charges”, what Jewish scholars agreed was a “blood libel” and what Charles Blow called the “Tucson Witch Hunt”.
Methinks it is because she shares the values of a majority of Americans: smaller Government, family, faith, freedoms, lower taxes, energy development and the like.
Methinks it is because she is the greatest threat to the agenda of the Left and may be America's historic first female President.
Posted by: pvilso24 | January 25, 2011 3:31 PM | Report abuse
We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.