Pulitzer-prize winning Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker has penned another “gem” about Governor Palin. I’ll admit, I don’t read her prose much, except when she’s writing snooty political obituaries for the Governor (which she does whenever she wants attention, I suppose.)
And this time around, she really outdid herself. Quite politely, as is her “southern” tradition, the Florida-native suggests that Governor Palin is a money-grubbing, attention-seeking “tease” who refuses to study up, and that all her supporters are going to feel severely disappointed when she inevitably doesn’t run for president — because she couldn’t possibly win.
You can read it here, if you really want to feel like smashing something later.
First, a brief factual rebuttal before I get into my general distain for Ms. Parker’s “attitude.” The gist of Parker’s latest piece is that Palin was “untrending” this week — in other words, hardly drawing any notice during her “weird” bus tour in Iowa.
Is Kathleen sniffing glue? What else can account for her detachment from “reality”?
She obviously pressed “send” on her hit piece before reading this CNN “Political Ticker” Headline: Palin Swarmed At Iowa State Fair
Or this from Politico:
The former Alaska governor and vice presidential candidate spent more than an hour with a crush of reporters, wandering through cattle stalls and talking about the presidential primary. … As soon as people noticed her enter the agricultural pavilion to see the famous butter cow — and boy, did they notice — Palin was mobbed. She took two hours to walk from that pavilion, past the food stalls about a hundred yards away, and back up to finally exit the fair. The mob grew so big that aides at one point directed her back the way they had come instead of pushing onward, fearing for her safety.
I wanted to call this post a “Tale of two Pulitzers” … It’s no secret that “conservative” Kathleen Parker won a Pulitzer Prize in 2010, in no small part, for her “fearless” rebukes of her fellow Republican Sarah Palin during and after the most-recent presidential campaign (including calling Palin an unwitting dog whistle for racism.)
I mean, it’s not like anyone else was criticizing Sarah Palin during that time, right? Courageous and bold Palin criticism has been in such short supply on both sides of the aisle! And as a writer myself, I empathized with Katheen: it must have been daunting to continually discover new ways to discredit a self-made political superstar. I mean during the course of the campaign and aftermath Governor Palin was only hung in effigy, threatened with gang rape, and subjected to having her church fire bombed, you know? Pile ons are so inspiring! And Kathleen piled on so gracefully. That’s no doubt, why the Pulitzer Committee was mucho impressed!
Were it possible for a woman to be called a sexist, I would apply that label to Kathleen, along with “elitist bore.” In her first memorable Palin-hate column, she speculated without a shred of evidence that McCain’s libido led him to select Governor Palin, not her accomplishments as governor. She also openly whined that her husband found Gov. Palin attractive. So, it’s no wonder she won a major professional award — as do all the women who have successfully demeaned the first woman ever selected to serve on a GOP presidential ticket. That’s what we call woman power!
I’m not going to delve into the psychiatry of Kathleen’s husband lusting after the Governor, nor what must be her own feelings of inadequacy after losing her talk show job after she was found to be the inferior co-host to a man who paid for sex.
I’m just going to say … Kathleen … here’s what another, much more feted Pulitzer Prize-winning writer had to say about Sarah Palin:
David Mamet (Pulitzer-winning playwright – ’84)
I am crazy about her. She seems to have succeeded at everything she put her hand to. She started with the PTA and then became the mayor and then governor. That’s someone who knows how to work. … Sarah Palin was a commercial fisherman. She actually worked with her hands, and so, like Harry Truman, was, to the Left, an object not only to be dismissed, but to be mocked. … During the 2008 debates, my liberal friends would spit at the mention of Sarah Palin’s name. Or they would literally mime the act of vomiting. … When a sheep discovers a wolf in the fold, it vomits to ward off the attacker. It’s a sign that their position in the herd is threatened. … What are [my friends] afraid of? They’re afraid of losing their ability to stay in the herd. That’s what I found in myself. It can be wrenching when you start to think away from the herd.”
So, there you have it … a Tale of Two Pulitzers. One won her award for staying in the herd, and another is probably being hung in effigy somewhere in West Hollywood for daring to defend Sarah Palin.
Unfortunately for Kathleen … the real facts about Palin are continually catching up with the liberal sheep, rendering their vomitous opinions quite useless.