Washington Post columnist channels Bobby Knight
Reliably doctrinaire liberal Eugene Robinson, a man who once (allegedly) had an original thought, tells Sarah Palin, in essence, "I think that if rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it." He doesn't even have the Clintonian courtesy to tell her to "put some ice on that..."
In the spirit of civil discourse, I'd like to humbly suggest that Sarah Palin please consider being quiet for a while. Perhaps a great while.Did Sarah Palin thrust herself into this "distant or tragic" event? Uh, no. Not at all. So who made it all about Sarah? How about the Washington Post, Eugene? Your newspaper, the bird-cage liner in which this astoundingly dishonest piece is printed, linked Sarah Palin to the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords, and not just once, but repeatedly. The media made up a storyline - "Sarah Palin's facebook map led to the shooting" - and then, despite the lack of supporting evidence, and the massive accumulation of contrary evidence, flogged that story mercilessly, at every turn. Your employer, the Washington Post, was a big part of that flawed storyline.
...Surely a former governor of Alaska - who served the better part of an entire term - would never seek to give the impression that she views any conceivable event, no matter how distant or tragic, as being All About Sarah.
The day of the shooting, Sarah Palin's mentioned in the Post's news story. And again in Jonathan Capehart's "PostPartisan" piece. On Sunday, the day after it happened, she's mentioned in the news story. And another news story. Also on Sunday, the Post managed to get a quote from Fidel Castro linking Sarah Palin to the shooting. Again on Monday in a news story. On Monday in a news analysis piece. On Monday in your colleague EJ Dionne's column. On Monday in your colleague Joe Davidson's column. Joe Davidson's next column went back to the utterly non-existent Palin connection on Tuesday.
There are 10 pieces linking her to a mass murder in your newspaper over just four days. Your paper alone, Euguene. And I've linked 10 only because I was tired of gathering links, and 10 is clearly sufficient evidence. I would be willing to bet that there are more. And that's the Washington Post, which is, on occasion, a smidge (just a smidge) less outrageously liberal than much of the rest of the mainstream media. That's not including the NY Times and the LA Times and the Boston Globe and CNN and CBS and MSNBC, Eugene - it's just the Washington Post, your employer, the organization for which you ply your trade, putting that spectacular and original intellect on display. On Wednesday, the morning that Sarah Palin's video was posted, Eugene, you dishonest hack, your colleague Jonathan Capehart described her, accurately (unfortunately) as "the woman who has been at the center of a stormy national debate over our super-heated political discourse." Why is that accurate? Because your paper, and the rest of the media, populated by you and your ilk, made her the center of attention. You couldn't publish a single freakin' Tucson story without linking in Sarah Palin, accusing her by implication of complicity in a mass murder, an event with which she had no link whatsoever outside the fevered imaginings of what passes for minds on the left. And now you have the unmitigated gall to offer the world your opinion that Sarah Palin has made it "All About Sarah"? You have the temerity to accuse her of egocentrism for simply responding to the character assassination that you and your colleagues have been committing? You have the chutzpah to tell her to be quiet? "Sit down and shut up - you'll take it and you'll like it."
Mr. Robinson - You, sir, are an ass. An unmitigated, irredeemable ass. You're entitled to your own opinion, sir. You are entitled to dislike Sarah Palin, to think her speech was ineffective, inappropriate, poorly presented, or any other damn thing. But you're not entitled to your own facts, and the facts clearly show that, contrary to her making it "all about Sarah," it was you and your employer and your colleagues that dragged her in to the story by associating her with a mass murder in every story that was written about it. This is as disgusting a dishonest column as I've ever seen, and if you were capable of shame, you should be ashamed of yourself.