Regarding Ruth Marcus's May 26 column, "Sarah Palin's lamestream thinking":
I heard Ms. Palin's comments about President Obama and "Big Oil" and drew an entirely different conclusion. I do not think Ms. Palin meant to imply that Obama is in the pocket of Big Oil; I think she meant to imply that the mainstream (lamestream) media have been incredibly reluctant to investigate the remote possibility that Obama may have been influenced by his energy industry contributions. By contrast, she implied that if George W. Bush were still president, the equally remote possibility that he may have been influenced by oil company contributions would have been trumpeted in high-profile investigative reports and opinion pieces for weeks or months.
What the lamestream media continually fail to understand is that Ms. Palin is a talented ironist with a biting wit and a deftness in skewering opponents by drawing simple, stark contrasts. Like all good ironists, the contrasts she draws are rarely what opponents perceive them to be. She is not stupid or sloppy; she is sharp and pointed -- if you are sympathetic to her point of view.
Malcolm Bliss, Arlington
Source:
Posts
0 Response to "Letters To (WaPost) Editor: A lamestream Analysis of Sarah Palin"