Posted by: ST on October 22, 2009 at 11:14 am
In response to the EW report on the liberal Nation magazine’s attempt at cashing in at Sarah Palin’s expense with their own book “Going Rouge,” Ed Morrissey goes off:
Would “the most honest account” have to be wrapped in a deceptive cover, intended to confuse consumers into buying the wrong book? If it doesn’t start out with an honest approach, why should we trust that the same people who made that decision will be honest inside the covers? For an answer to that, we only need see the list of essayists included in this rehash of old Palin-opposing material, who include such straight-arrow observers as Amanda Marcotte, Max Blumenthal, Eve Ensler, and Jane Hamsher. Hamsher made her biggest political splash when she put Joe Lieberman in blackface during his re-election campaign. Marcotte got fired from the Edwards campaign for her vilification of religious believers in language bad enough to actually embarrass Edwards — and given Edwards’ history, that’s saying something indeed.
The whole thing looks like a bad Mad Magazine takeoff of a book, which is the impression that The Nation leaves with its Going Rouge cheapie. And the bottom line is this: after 150 years of publication, The Nation has to piggyback off of a Republican VP candidate to achieve relevance. Have The Nation’s editors become so insecure about their product that they feel they can only sell it through deception? In that, it has a lot in common with their progressive agenda.
And so-called “progressive leaders” as well, who don’t seem to know how to grow up – and get beyond silly and demeaning sexist stereotypes (yes, liberal women can be some of the worst serial sexist offenders). “Going Rouge” indeed.