Last Thursday, Roland Martin went nuclear on former Governor Sarah Palin in a rant clearly inspired by the "retard" dustup that devolved into a general screed against everything the CNN contributor could think of.
Among the lowlights of the piece, Martin: mocked those in "real America" for being Palin fans; accused her of giving speeches "full of falsehoods," and; claimed she was an empty-headed celebrity who wanted nothing more than money.
Perhaps this was what Martin had in mind when he encouraged President Obama to go gangsta on Republicans standing in the way. For someone supposedly concerned about partisan bickering, it was rich of Martin to suddenly drop all pretense of being a nonpartisan commentator.
"Palin Should Cut the Hypocrisy" jumped right in with the first paragraph to set a hostile tone:
Sarah Palin's most ardent supporters in "real America" love to suggest that those of us who don't buy into her shtick fail to grasp why they love her, citing her realness, plain-spokenness and whatever else they can conjure up.
Folks, nice try, but as a native Texan, I've seen many politicians and wannabes over the years who had charm, wit, charisma and a twinkle in their eye.
Whom did Martin hold up as paragons of real political prowess? Why, two Democrats of course:
You want a media darling politician with substance? Try the late Gov. Ann Richards, a woman who could cut you deep and beam ear-to-ear with her motherly smile. But unlike Palin, she had a host of strong ideas in her head that actually made sense and appealed to a cross-section of folks.
Former Rep. Charlie Wilson, who died this week, was a smooth-talking Texan who loved to party hard. But when it came to politics, he knew how to get things done. The media loved him because he could sit with you and enjoy a beer over barbecue, give them a hilarious quote or two, and explain foreign policy better than Henry Kissinger.
Richards and Wilson were both brilliant, unlike that dumb Sarah Palin:
Why haven't I cottoned to Palin? Because she portrays herself as a straight-talking politician who wants to lead a movement in the "Lower 48th" -- but is nothing more than a political celebrity willing to cash every check she can grab.
Martin then spent nearly 400 words angrily narrating Palin's defense of Rush Limbaugh satirically using the word "retard." Martin insisted "anyone who can read or listen" knows Limbaugh was serious. As for why Palin chose to defend him, Martin explained that Limbaugh is the "patron saint" of conservatives and therefore above criticism.
Had Martin ended his piece right there, it would have been a fairly debatable point. But once he got going, he just couldn't stop himself.
What followed was an unwieldy partisan meltdown that could have been lifted straight from Daily Kos:
Sarah, I haven't bought into your fake "I'm-a-real-American" persona. You slam the president for using teleprompters, but write crib notes on your hand to remember basic beliefs that should be easy to regurgitate.
You decry the "lamestream" media, but you bask in its glory and have joined its payroll as a Fox News contributor, even having the network build a studio in your home. Talk about media elite.
You give a speech riddled with falsehoods about the president and national security, and then try to shrug them off as the "lamestream" media attacking you.
You don't fool me, even as your legion of fans considers you the second coming of President Reagan. You quit on the people who elected you to become a political celebrity, which your presidential running mate blasted then-Sen. Barack Obama for doing.
You had the opportunity to show everyone that you're willing to take on anyone who crosses the line against those who are mentally challenged, and you failed.
Please, make as much money as you can. Paraphrasing comedian Martin Lawrence, ride this train until the wheels fall off. But please, cut the crap. You're a crass politician with no true conviction. Your actions have shown that.
The next time Martin goes around claiming for the hundredth time that he's not a liberal hack, someone should ask if such vitriolic writing represents an unbiased news network.