The Single Thread That Unravels Joe McGinniss' Career

McGinniss' double-talk has destroyed his credibility

Once upon a time, Joe McGinniss was a reputable and respected journalist.

After The Rogue, he isn't anymore. He never will be again.

The full extent to which McGinniss' creepy obsession with Sarah Palin has destroyed him seems to be entirely lost on McGinniss, along with the fact that his double-speak regarding Palin has not escaped notice.

For example, McGinniss claimed in an interview with CNN's Piers Morgan that the linkage of his book to supermarket tabloids was the result of the National Enquirer publishing tales contained in his book, only to later admit that he used that publication as a source.

But that isn't McGinniss' most serious problem.

McGinniss' most serious problem is the single thread that unravels not only The Rogue, but McGinniss' entire career.

Two separate claims are made in The Rogue that, together, cannot be true. Only one or the other can be true.

In the book -- an assertion McGinniss has repeated at length during the rapidly-dwindling media interviews he's given in support of the book, he claims that Palin is a religious fanatic.

"She sounds stupid and she is stupid, so that part is real," McGinnis remarked. "This folksy, family values kind of thing, it's just the opposite. She's not folksy, she's not warm, she's not personable, she's not just the girl next door. She's a vengeful, mean spirited, somewhat paranoid woman who's also a religious fanatic."

The banal malice of McGinniss' words have long been typical of the manner in which she's approached by the left.

But, as The Rogue would also have it, Palin actually is not religious at all.

As revealled by an embarrassingly-fawning review in the Toronto Star:

"'There was no religion,' an insider reveals. 'There was nothing about God. There was no Christ. Nobody prayed. No Bibles. No crosses. None of that was ever there. Never.'"

So McGinniss writes that Palin is, deep down, a fanatical religious fundamentalist. And he also writes that Palin's public displays of religious belief are a sham, because she and her family are not even remotely religious.

It doesn't take a PHD in philosophy to recognize that both of these things can be true. One could be true. Or the other could be true. But not the two together.

So which one of these two possibilities is true? So far, it's a question that the few media outlets that have allowed his presence to pollute their broadcasts have so far declined to ask him.

With the media turning away from McGinniss, it's clear that they've figured out that the precise worth of his book is pure bullshit.

The fact that he can so rarely keep his story straight is just the icing on that particular pile of cow dung.