6. Sarah Palin doesn’t like her own children and never looked after them. She is so “narcissistic she couldn’t even care for a pet.” She forced Track to “enlist [in the military] for her own PR gain,” which was typical, as her children have always only been “part of the show.” Despite this carefully cultivated image, however, a plethora of people came forward and told McGinniss that Sarah frequently screams at her husband about divorce while on the telephone and calls her children “f***ers.” The cultivated image, perfect enough to fool the media, was not enough to fool those who reported that Palin’s children were “dirty,” “filthy,” and left to fend for themselves while their mother was “lying in bed.” This is unsurprising, however: “Sarah isn’t a nurturing person because she wasn’t really loved by her Mom.”
7. Sarah and Todd Palin “don’t have a marriage” and have never been happy. Todd repeatedly has sex with women on his trips to Dillingham, Alaska, and Sarah had an affair with one of his friends to get back at him. Sarah and Todd have “never showed any affection for each other.” Moreover, they never have sex; Todd makes public jokes about having had sex four times, once for each child (pre-Trig). Sarah is prudish and, contrary to her public image, hung up about sex.
8. Sarah Palin, she of the sexless marriage and prudish disposition, unashamedly uses her sexuality, and boasted about wearing a push-up bra to meetings at City Hall and “using her t***ies to get . . . votes.”
9. Sarah Palin’s exposure of the ethics violations of Randy Ruedrich, a fellow Republican, a move that drew almost universal praise, was actually a deliberate and cynical attempt to give herself the foundations of “statewide recognition,” and needs to be seen within the context of her lust for power.
10. Sarah Palin is a “bully” who picks on “the most vulnerable parts of the society — young women, children, gays, the poor.” She learned this trait from her father: “If someone disagrees with you, or does something you don’t like, annihilate first, ask questions later.”
“The sensational information in ‘The Rogue,’” wrote the Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart, “would be truly devastating if it were nailed down with airtight confirmation from on-the-record sources or documentation. Something. Anything other than a ‘friend’ or ‘one resident’ of questionable motive and veracity.”
Quite — but such high standards would have ruined the story.
— Charles C. W. Cooke is an editorial associate at National Review.