What does Going Rouge have in common with the progressive agenda?
posted at 10:12 am on October 22, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
So the editors of The Nation, the venerable progressive political magazine, are releasing a copycat book timed to make a little cash off of their bête noir, Sarah Palin. Palin’s book, Going Rogue, will hit bookstores in mid-November, and so Richard Kim and Betsy Reed are rushing a “collection of essays” about Palin through the publication process to match her book — and match its cover as well, as Allahpundit noted last night. Their promotion of this book is rather telling, in a couple of ways:
The most honest, revealing account of the Palin story to appear this fall? You betcha!
Sarah Palin has many faces: hockey mom, fundamentalist Christian, sex symbol, Republican ideologue, fashion icon, “maverick” populist. But, above all, Palin has become one thing: an American obsession that just won’t go away. Edited by two senior editors at The Nation magazine, this sharp, smart, up-to-the-minute book examines Palin’s quirky origins in Wasilla, Alaska, her spectacular rise to the effective leadership of the Republican Party, and the nightmarish prospect of her continuing to dominate the nation’s political scene.
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.
Note: For the FTC or the clueless (but I repeat myself!), sales through Amazon links result in compensation to me.
Breaking on Hot Air