Joan Walsh: “Hannity Is an Oaf” and Other Deep Thoughts

Last night, Ian documented the stunt by several left-wing pundits, including the Palin-obsessed Joan Walsh,  to purposely misrepresent what Governor Palin said in her interview with Sean Hannity (Yes, I do believe the distortions were purposeful).  Today, in an excellent article with the above title in Big Journalism, Dana Loesch takes a closer look at Walsh’s Palin derangement.  Enjoy:

If Joan Walsh obsessed over the facts of the Tucson shooting case as she does over every word which falls from Sarah Palin’s mouth, one might be able to take her as a credible contributor to general political discourse. As it is, she’s just a rude lady who believes that calling people names (as she has me, my favorite is “moron”) suffices as critical thinking.

If that passes as critical thinking we are truly on our way to a real life “Idiocracy.”

I haven’t had enough alcohol to read Walsh’s entire Trapper Keeper diatribe, but a few points did jump out at me and I would be remiss to ignore them.

Incredibly deep quotes after the jump.

Palin talked about her shock at learning she was being mentioned, “along with your name, Sean” and Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin and other right-wing blowhards. And so she had to stand up for these victims. She continued: “I know that a lot of those on the left hate my message, and they’ll do all that they can to stop me” – emphasis on “me,” and her voice rose there, even though she said repeatedly it’s not about her.

No, she named names and also mentioned the too-many-to-name conservatives across America who were called accessories to murder simply because … they want smaller government. I know. It’s the same wayward reasoning that drives cousins to sleep with cousins but passes as a legitimate editorial in Salon. I digress.

Palin said:

“I will continue to speak out, they’re not going to shut me up, anyone up … “

Palin is sought for interviews by the same outlets who later accuse her and half of the country of being accessories to murder but when she defends herself she’s making it ABOUT herself.

“It had nothing to do with an apolitical or perhaps even left-leaning criminal who killed these innocents and injured so many, I didn’t have a problem having it taken down…if in fact it got taken down.” Got that? Whatever she said? Whether it was taken down or not? By whomever?

Her actual quote:

“I believe that someone in the PAC – in fact the contract graphic artist – did take it down. I don’t believe that was in appropriate … if it caused heartache, I didn’t have a problem with that.”

[…]

” … an apolitical or perhaps a left-leaning criminal …”

And this from Walsh?

Like the way she slipped in with no evidence the fact that Jared Loughner might have been left-leaning?

If Walsh is suddenly against rushing to judgment, does this mean she’s going to apologize for rushing to judgment just a few days ago?

Sadly, to my knowledge, no conservative leader has yet called for dialing back the rage on the right in the wake of the Giffords shooting.

This sentence only makes sense if you believe that Jared Loughner is a conservative controlled by other conservatives. Maybe he works for the Kochs! Of course, we now know that Loughner was no conservative, at least, in the real world, not the make-believe world where The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf are the favorite books of, hating Bush, burning flags, and being a troofer are the favorite pastimes of “conservatives.” But what a great plot for a quasi-”Inception”-esque movie!

Read the rest of Loesch’s piece here.



(18853 Posts)

Leave a Reply