Monday, February 28, 2011

Iowa's 'Des Moines Register' has bad news for Sarah Palin ... and an explanation of how she's failing Iowa voters. Updated! With Comic Relief

A respected poll out of Iowa has more bad news for Sarah Palin this morning:
The Des Moines Register has -- Does Sarah Palin know that Des Moines is in Iowa? -- has "Iowa Poll: Palin's favorability rating slips."

The Boston Herald has, via AP, via The Des Moines Register -- looks like Des Moines' Register is on the case -- "Sarah Palin’s favorability rating drops in Iowa."

Politico's Ben Smith wrote, citing Des Moines' Register, "Palin fades in Iowa poll."

The Atlantic has -- What? Another cite for the Des Moines paper? -- "Poll: Palin's Numbers Dip in Iowa."
The Register's poll shows that Palin's favorability -- favorability is not the same as support for a candidacy -- rating has fallen to 65 percent compared with 71 percent in November of 2009. That drop, according to the Register's Poll Director, raises doubts about a Palin candidacy in Iowa:
... While a solid majority of [likely Republican voters] still views Palin positively, the intensity has waned as Palin has become a regular national media presence but done little to cultivate a support base in Iowa.

The shift is not dramatic, but it raises questions about whether Palin would have staying power in Iowa as she moves closer to a decision on a White House run, pollsters say.

"One might ask the question: Is she wearing well? And the numbers are not moving in a favorable direction on that," Iowa Poll director J. Ann Selzer said. ...

... [Since November of 2009], Palin has produced two best-selling books, become a regular contributor to Fox News Channel and become the subject of a television program on TLC.

She has also visited Iowa four times, including three times to promote her books and once to headline a state Republican Party fundraiser. Each appearance has drawn Iowa and national news coverage.

The new poll shows fewer likely voters who are Republicans view Palin very favorably, 18 percent, than the 27 percent who did so in the Register's November 2009 poll.

"The change in intensity is statistically significant," said Adam Geller, a Republican pollster and campaign consultant to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's 2009 campaign. "If you're Sarah Palin, you want those lines on the chart going up as the presidential contest gets closer, not going down." ...

... Favorability is not the same as support for Palin's candidacy, should she decide to run. ...

... Palin has done very little to cultivate political good will in a state where face-to-face meetings with influential activists, officials and organizers are common. Palin held no private political meetings during any of her four visits. She met briefly with about 50 influential Republican officials and donors during a reception before the fundraiser she headlined in September, but did not discuss mounting an Iowa campaign.

Some Iowa Republicans have said privately they do not expect Palin to run, considering her low profile in the state.

A reason for the dimmed enthusiasm for Palin could be her national exposure combined with her lack of Iowa activity, Geller said.

"She hasn't been active in the state. And Iowans have that expectation and a feeling of responsibility to see these people up close," Geller said. "But it might also be a little Sarah Palin fatigue. They are familiar with her and yet they are not necessarily embracing her. Sixty-five percent is not a very high favorable rating." ...

... Meanwhile, the percentage of likely Republican voters who view Palin unfavorably has grown to 30 percent in the new poll, up from 23 percent in the 2009 survey. ...

There is more at the Register's article, including quotes from Iowa Republicans -- there is at least one die-hard Palin supporter among them. I'll certainly be checking the Register -- Don't we need to adopt a standard for setting off the names of newspapers? periodicals? TV shows? -- checking for news of the Iowa caucuses.

Comic Relief: Wonkette has found a secret Twitter account that's said to be Sarah Palin's, used by her so that she can "follow" herself. At Wonkette's story, there are also links to the story of Sarah's secret Facebook account -- discovered by Wonkette, earlier -- an account she used to praise herself.

Update: Yay! The Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart has weighed in with his "Iowa Republicans cool to Sarah Palin:"
First, Sarah Palin's presidential flirtations hit a granite wall in New Hampshire -- home of the first-in-the-nation primary. Now comes a poll that shows likely Republican voters in Iowa -- home of the first-in-the-nation caucus -- are cooling to the half-term governor's charms. ...

... The Iowa poll is statistical proof of what Dan Balz reported two weeks ago in a report on Iowa Republican activists. Folks really like Palin. They just don't think she's ready to be president. Here's what Iowa physician Christi Taylor told Balz.
As a woman, and from one strong woman to another, I want to like her and want to support her desperately. And yet, you just can't quite do it. ...
At the end of Capehart's post, there is a chart of Palin's favorable/unfavorable rating since September of 2009. It doesn't look good for our lady-in-waiting. I admire Jonathan Capehart, because he has held a consistent view of Sarah Palin's presidential prospects for some time -- he isn't affected by Palin mania -- and I think he's right: "Sarah Palin is everywhere -- and going nowhere."

Sunday, February 27, 2011

Palin Running for Money, says Ann Coulter and Montana's Governor -- Updated!

Politico has a report about its interview of Montana governor Brian Schweitzer:
... "Sarah's not running. ...

... "Because everything she's done since the last presidential election has decreased her job approval all over the country. Did she write any books before she ran for vice president? Did Fakes News have her employed then?," he said, when pressed for his reasoning why the former Alaska governor won't pull the trigger. "Clearly she only stayed governor for two years, that doesn't pay much. What she's doing now pays a lot more." ...

And read what Ann Coulter had to say about a Palin candidacy:
The conservative commentator Ann Coulter made the claim on Sean Hannity's show on Fox News on Feb. 25 2011 that Sarah Palin is fueling speculation she may run for the 2012 Republican nomination for the U.S. Presidency because she wants higher fees at speaking engagements.

"I think she's saying that (she might run) because she also said Newt Gingrich told her you can get higher speaking fees if you pretend you are running for President," Coulter told Hannity.
There is another story about Coulter's appearance on Hannity at Mediaite, which includes video.

Now that Coulter has told Hannity what she knows, will he ask Palin to confirm or deny that she is pretending she might run in order to boost her speaking fee? Palin loves to appear on Hannity's show, so we shouldn't have to wait long for an answer, unless it takes them some time to decide how Hannity can couch the question so Palin can spin Coulter's comment.

The governor of Montana is a Democrat, and Ann Coulter is full of common sense. With their assessments, we do have a bi-partisan consensus: Sarah Palin isn't going to run. You know, it really wouldn't make sense for her to run: It seems as though everyone -- looking for a Republican candidate that might win -- everyone knows she's unqualified. And, she hated being governor of Alaska; most likely because she has no interest in government.


Update: Jennifer Rubin. writer of the Washinton Post's Right Turn column and someone with an ear to the ground of Republican politics, writes:
Nearly everything mainstream political reporters and conventional-wisdom-spouting pundits told us about the 2012 Republican presidential primary race is turning out to be wrong. Sarah Palin is the "frontrunner"! Wrong. The field will be huge! Wrong. The Republicans always choose the "next in line," so that's Mitt Romney! Uh, probably wrong.

What we do know is that Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) are not running. With each passing day it seems more and more likely that Palin will pass as well. Mike Huckabee keeps telling us he likes his current lifestyle (and income). So who is left? Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels and, maybe, Newt Gingrich. ...

I'll bet that Sarah Palin likes her current lifestyle (and income), too.

Update: Here's how Sarah Palin may have been "told" by Newt Gingrich that it's a good idea to pretend to run (from NY Magazine):
Newt Gingrich is really thinking hard about running for president in 2012, he said today in Iowa, the perfect state for saying such things. "I've never been this serious," Gingrich claimed. "It's fair to say that by February the groundwork will have been laid to consider seriously whether or not to run." It's a good thing Newt is dragging out this decision process for so long — it will give the media an excuse to pay any attention to him despite all the insane things he says, which will help the sales of his book! It's the exact reason that Gingrich advised Indiana governor Mitch Daniels to be coy about running for president, according to a recent Weekly Standard article.
At dinner Daniels admits as much. “Newt [Gingrich] told me, look, quit saying you’re not going to do this. If you don’t run, you don’t run. But say you’re leaving the door open, and the national press will pay a lot more attention to your viewpoint.”

Call us when you're running, Newt.

Gingrich even told Daniels that it's a good idea to say, "you're leaving the door open." That's what Sarah Palin says, too!

Friday, February 25, 2011

Palin's Star Fading Fast

Steven Thomma of McClatchy Newspapers writes, in "Even GOP activists are turning against Sarah Palin,"
As Sarah Palin wonders whether to run for president, she might want to talk to people in places such as South Carolina.

She'd find her star fading, and her prospects daunting.

Republicans still like her, but now they openly question whether she could or should be nominated for president, let alone elected.

At a recent gathering in South Carolina, the site of a crucial early presidential primary next year, party activists said the former Alaska governor didn't have the experience, the knowledge of issues or the ability to get beyond folksy slang and bumper-sticker generalities that they think is needed to win and govern.

Many are shopping for someone else. They're looking at Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., for example, and seeing what they call a smarter, more experienced candidate who's equally as conservative.

"Sarah Palin with a brain," said Gail Moore, a Republican from Columbia. ...
Several people were interviewed for the article, and they freely criticize Palin for her inadequacies. Then the article concludes:
It's been a surprising turn since 2008, said Lee Miringoff, the director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion in New York, which conducts the McClatchy-Marist Poll. Despite a barrage of criticism of Palin by Democrats and the news media, she came out of the election looking as if she'd be the major force for the party's nomination.

"She doesn't appeal to the center, and she hasn't been trying to," Miringoff said.

"There's a general sense among Republicans that this is someone they like being part of the 2012 narrative," Miringoff said. "They don't mind her pushing the edge of the envelope on issues. But there's concern about electability, about polarization. They're not necessarily sure she should be the nominee."
Don Long of Lake Wylie, S.C. said of Palin, "Her major weakness is that she needs to bone up on how the government works. I don't know if she's done as much of that as she needs to." I believe that the reason why Sarah Palin hasn't boned up on government is that Sarah Palin has no interest in government, and that, in turn, is why she came to hate her job as Alaska's governor.

Sarah Palin heads to India?

From Alexandra Petri's "Sarah Palin heads to India?"
We may never know who Lou Sarah was or why she only had twelve friends. All trace of this rogue pro-Palin Facebook page has vanished, in spite of all the blissful hours Lou Sarah spent poking me and suggesting I rewatch Sarah Palin's Alaska "for the subtleties."

But now the real Sarah is going to India. She'll feel at home - "India is just Indiana with less sodium," she'll quip, or maybe not.

But what is she doing there?

Well, she's giving a dinner keynote address, or whatever the Sarah Palin approximation of a keynote address is.

She's listed as one of many "incredible speakers" and follows in the footsteps of James Cameron. This makes sense; both are creators of fantasy worlds where heavily armed Real Americans sort of try to show the blue-state tree-huggers who's really boss, and neither has much gift for dialogue. ...

... I still fail to understand what she's doing there. The other speakers at this event? India's Prime Minister and Nobel Prize-winner Mohammed ElBaradei. One of these things is not quite like the others. It's not that I'm one of those people who would gladly pay $100,000 for Sarah Palin not to address me. But I don't know who thought she was a logical pick. Although now that Lou Sarah is off Facebook, maybe it's the only way to connect.

Alexandra Petri occasionally writes about Sarah Palin at The Washington Post's ComPost column.

Thursday, February 24, 2011

Sarah Palin is Going to India?

Politico's Andy Barr is reporting:
Sarah Palin is traveling to India next month to rub elbows with Indian politicians and Bollywood stars.

The former Alaska governor is scheduled to speak at the India Today Conclave in New Delhi on March 19. ...

... The conference’s choice of Palin is an odd one. She will be the only American politician attending the conference, which is stacked with Indian and Pakistani officials, business leaders, public figures and entertainers.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is kicking off the conference Friday morning with the keynote. Palin’s speech comes Saturday night and brings the conference to a close.
Ah! The closing speech: Dessert; s'mores; a happy ending. Although Palin may not be contributing anything substantive to the conference, a closing speech shouldn't be a throwaway. eHow's guide, "How to Write a Closing Speech," addresses several things every closing speech writer should know. I'll put on my Sarah Palin hat wig and give you her reaction to each of the guide's points:
1) Understand Speech Structure
Organization? Word salad isn't allowed?
Explain who I am and mention my credentials? But -- woe is me! -- I quit.
2) Summarize Key Ideas
Ideas? What ideas?
3) Give Them a Clue
If that door opens -- Oops! will someone -- anyone! -- please! -- peel me off that door?
4) Make Them Feel Something
DON'T RETREAT!
5) Get Them to Take Action
RELOAD!
Perhaps I've lent her more self awareness than she has.

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Grow up, Sarah!

In "Palin can dish it out, but she can’t take it," Cynthia Tucker of Atlanta's Journal-Constitution tells Sarah Palin to "grow up:"
Earlier this week, Politico wrote about a trove of e-mails, contained in an unpublished manuscript written by Frank Bailey, a former aide to Sarah Palin, which show the former governor as the petty, vindictive, self-centered and hyper-sensitive personality any halfway attentive observer has long known her to be. With an enemies list which would put Richard Nixon to shame, Palin is obsessed with every perceived slight, every criticism, every mention of her that is less than glowing praise. She goes after not just liberals, Democrats and the “lamestream media,” as she calls us, but also Republican bigwigs who, she believes, are unfair to her ...

... Palin has absolutely no business in public life. She is temperamentally unsuited to modern-day politics, where officials and their family members — even children — are subjected to harsh criticism, unfair attacks, scurrilous rumors and even violent threats. ...

... Sarah, grow up.
Sarah Palin can dish it out, but she can't take it.

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Palin Trumped by The Donald

The Bemidji Pioneer has a report about the Beltrami County Republicans presidential straw poll:

... With 46 delegates voting in the straw poll, both Hucabee [sic] and Pawlenty scored nine votes, good for 19.6 percent each.

Delegates at their annual convention were told that Hucakbee [sic] won the straw poll, followed by Pawlenty, but Cobb said a data input error occurred when posting the results into an onsite computer.

Delegates picked from a list of 23 potential presidential candidates, including newcomer billionaire Donald Trump, who got 4.3 percent of the vote. ...

... Among notables, former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney each had three votes or 6.5 percent. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin got none. ...

Sarah Palin may be scared of reporters, authors, bloggers, columnists and cartoonists, but Donald Trump is scared of germs. He considered running for office in 2000, but couldn't bring himself to shake hands with the voters. Time magazine's Margaret Carlson was, I believe, the first to write, in 1999, about Trump's phobia:

... I have come to New York to see if Trump, the umpteenth person to form a presidential exploratory committee this year, is as big a jerk as he sometimes seems to be. Not that being a jerk automatically disqualifies a person from becoming a candidate these days: anyone with airfare and a website can jump in. But he's the first real estate developer with a skyscraper-size ego to run, a man famous for prompting Marla Maples' tabloid headline BEST SEX I'VE EVER HAD, and for refusing to shake hands for fear of germs. As he shakes mine, I ask him if he's got over this phobia. "I don't mind shaking the hand of a beautiful woman," he croons. "It's worth the risk." ...

This post's photo came from a Politico story, "Minn. poll: Trump bests Palin."

Monday, February 21, 2011

The Leak of Frank Bailey's Book

We hope that Frank Bailey's book, tentatively titled "Blind Allegiance to Sarah Palin: A Memoir of Our Tumultuous Years," will be published. The book is very much an Alaskan story, albeit with national implications should Palin choose to run for national office, so it's important that it be published. There is some doubt, now, however, that it will ever be published.

Ken Morris has posted "Say it Ain’t So, Joe! Co-Author of Leaked Palin Book Speaks Out" at Mudflats. The post includes a letter sent to Joe McGinniss, author of Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin, which is scheduled to be published on September 20, 2011. The letter accuses McGinniss of two things: 1) Infringing the authors' copyright and 2) Impairing the manuscript's marketability by disseminating it.

We posted an excerpt of the original of Alaska Dispatch's current story about the leak, as well as links to articles where recipients of the manuscript had commented on or quoted from the manuscript. Our only quote from the manuscript, which was attributed to Sarah Palin in the manuscript, was taken from Alaska Dispatch's initial story about the leak. We have reconsidered our use of the quote after reviewing Alaska Dispatch's response to a legal firm representing the manuscript's co-authors. Our quote of the remark attributed to Sarah Palin and our excerpt from Alaska Dispatch's original article have been removed.

Update: There is quite an amusing post -- a laugh-out-loud post -- at the blog of 'a German attorney who will identify himself only as “Patrick.”' He claims to have received a cease and desist letter and treats it very cavalierly, for an attorney. They claim to have removed some things that they claim were obtained from other news outlets, but they have retained quotes from the manuscript's e-mails; e-mails they apparently thought might support their opinions about Trig Palin's birth, but may not. I write "they," because although the response appears to be signed by "Kathleen," the response is preceeded by "Therefore, we inevitably have to give a reply." I seem to recall, from Shakespeare, "'tis but the breath of an unfeed lawyer," and something else -- not from Shakespeare -- something about a fool and a client ... oh, yes, "A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client."

Update: Wonkette has a humorous treatment of the leak, too, at "Leaked Book SHOCKER: Sarah Palin Is Terrible."

Update: A voice from the back seat asks, "Are we there yet?" If you'd like to read about another angle to the manuscript leak story, palingates has posted "Frank Bailey and Sarah Palin's e-mails." If you'd like something different, about a breakthrough in another Palin story, see Malia Litman's "The Anchorage Police Admit Misstatements!" If you're fed-up with all things Palin, you may be able to find something else to read by scrolling down the sidebar, on the left.

Sunday, February 20, 2011

Sarah Palin's End: Losing Altitude

Frank Rich has mentioned Sarah Palin in his op-ed at The New York Times, "The G.O.P.’s Post-Tucson Traumatic Stress Disorder:"

SIX weeks after that horrific day in Tucson, America has half-forgotten its violent debate over the power of violent speech to incite violence. It’s Gabrielle Giffords’s own power of speech that rightly concerns us now. But all those arguments over political language did leave a discernible legacy. In the aftermath of President Obama’s Tucson sermon, civility has had a mini-restoration in Washington. And some of the most combative national figures in our politics have been losing altitude ever since, much as they did after Bill Clinton’s oratorical response to the inferno of Oklahoma City

Glenn Beck’s ratings at Fox News continued their steady decline, falling to an all-time low last month. He has lost 39 percent of his viewers in a year and 48 percent of the prime 25-to-54 age demographic. His strenuous recent efforts to portray the Egyptian revolution as an apocalyptic leftist-jihadist conspiracy have inspired more laughs than adherents.

Sarah Palin’s tailspin is also pronounced. It can be seen in polls, certainly: the ABC News-Washington Post survey found that 30 percent of Americans approved of her response to the Tucson massacre and 46 percent did not. (Obama’s numbers in the same poll were 78 percent favorable, 12 percent negative.) But equally telling was the fate of a Palin speech scheduled for May at a so-called Patriots & Warriors Gala in Glendale, Colo.

Tickets to see Palin, announced at $185 on Jan. 16, eight days after Tucson, were slashed to half-price in early February. Then the speech was canceled altogether, with the organizers blaming “safety concerns resulting from an onslaught of negative feedback.” But when The Denver Post sought out the Glendale police chief, he reported there had been no threats or other causes for alarm. The real “negative feedback” may have been anemic ticket sales, particularly if they were to cover Palin’s standard $100,000 fee.

What may at long last be dawning on some Republican grandees is that a provocateur who puts her political adversaries in the cross hairs and then instructs her acolytes to “RELOAD” frightens most voters. ...

Saturday, February 19, 2011

GOP: Birthers are Evil, but a Necessary Evil

Salon has quite a collection of posts and links to posts about the "birthers," those who believe that President Obama was not born in America and is, therefore, ineligible to be President. Their first post, "Karl Rove says birtherism is a White House trap," exposes Rove's desire to have it both ways, so that "Republicans who denounce birtherism don't have to take responsibility for the fact that Republicans [have] allowed it to spread far and wide:"
It is also in Rove's interest to downplay the number of birthers in the party. That poll of likely GOP primary voters that showed that a staggering 51 percent of them believe the president is a foreigner? That poll is also a liberal plot:

O'Reilly decided to rebut the PPP poll by showing the results of a CBS survey taken last year. According to this poll, 20% of Americans think Obama was born abroad and 58% think he was born in this country (the rest didn't know). Both O'Reilly and Rove seemed sanguine about this poll because, apparently, the idea that only one in five Americans is completely uninformed and another one in five cannot answer a simple question is somehow reassuring.

But as Isaac Chotiner points out, the polls do not actually contradict each other, because one is a poll of likely GOP primary voters and the other is a poll of everyone.

And, of course, Republican John Boehner, the Honorable Speaker of The House, is only pretty sure that the President is a citizen.

Birtherism has even driven one house of Arizona's legislature to introduce a bill that would require candidates for president or vice president to submit a birth certificate in order to appear on the state's ballot. And, that birth certificate must be a "long-form." What is a long-form birth certificate?

House majority leader Eric Cantor has said that he believes that Obama is a citizen, but has appeared on "Meet the Press" and "refused to call people who question Obama's citizenship "crazy," saying it's not nice to call anyone crazy."

When Sarah Palin answered questions at a recent Long Island Association event, "She said it was unwise for Republicans to keep doubts alive about the authenticity of President Obama's birth certificate and citizenship, saying: 'It’s distracting. It gets annoying. Let’s stick with what really matters.'” Isn't her statement remarkably like Rove's statement, which can be read in Salon's "Birthers" post, "We need the leaders of our party to say, 'Look, stop falling into the trap of the White House and focus on the real issues?'"

boston.com's Garrett Quinn writes, in his Less Is More column, "Birthers just won't go away:"
These recent developments provide an opening for some Republicans to confront this idiocy head on. Romney would be smart to distance himself from the birthers and their most popular candidate, Sarah Palin.
There is really a remarkable divide in how the birther and non-birther wings of the GOP view Sarah Palin. With the birthers she is a beloved figure, scoring an 83/12 favorability rating. Non-birthers are almost evenly divided on her with 47% rating her positively and 40% unfavorably.

In 2009 she walked back a comment on a radio show saying that she doesn't have a problem with Obama's birth certificate being an issue. Palin can speak from experience on this issue though as she was hounded by the spinning political compass of Andrew Sullivan over the birth certificate of her son, Trig.

Birtherism may solve a problem, however. In Hawaii, where Obama was born, a bill has been introduced that would allow anyone to buy a copy of his birth certificate for $100. It's a scheme to use birther hysteria to balance a budget.

Note: As I've re-read this post, I've become aware that it may not have a point, although it does have a purpose. It was interesting that Salon had a topic devoted to birthers, and the post provides a way to make a record of some links where some interesting information can be found. Rove's discussion with O'Reilly, in which they appear to be nonplussed that about 20% of the population is unprepared for modern life, is interesting. Jonathan Chait's post, "Bill O'Reilly and Karl Rove Fail Basic Math," written by Isaac Chotiner, was particularly interesting.

Friday, February 18, 2011

Frank Bailey's Manuscript, 'Blind Allegiance to Sarah Palin', Leaked

NOTE: Some of the articles at the Alaska Dispatch links have disappeared. This morning, the links were changed, so I updated them. A short while later, a login was required. Later, hitting the links brought up an "Access Denied" page. I'll check, later, to see whether the Alaska Dispatch posts have been moved or restored. The links to articles at other news outlets still appear to be working (1400 PST of February 21, 2011). 1615 PST: The Alaska Dispatch story about the leak is available again; however, it is not the original story.

NOTE: We have another post about the leaked manuscript, here.


Frank Bailey was a key aide to former governor Sarah Palin. He has written a book -- unpublished -- about his time with Palin while she was governor. The book's manuscript was leaked to Alaska Dispatch, which posted "'Tell-all' book by ex-Palin aide leaked to media:"
[We have removed the excerpt of Alaska Dispatch's original story about the leak after reviewing Alaska Dispatch's response to the legal firm that represents the manuscript's co-authors.]
There may be more at the Alaska Dispatch website; see the link, above. They consider this to be a developing story, so they may be updating it.


Updates: Alaska Dispatch has updated with information about how the manuscript came into their hands.

Today: Book News, at NBC, has a story, via Anchorage's KTUU; they have indicated that there will be updates.

The Anchorage NBC affiliate's website is KTUU.com. KTUU's current story is here.

The Anchorage Daily News has a politics blog, which has several posts, here.

Alaska's Andrew Halcro, who ran against Palin in 2006, writes in his blog that Bailey's book validates everything he has written about Palin.

Gryphen has posted "The Leak of Frank Bailey's Book."

The AP has posted a story, "Aide planning tell-all about time with Palin."

Mudflats has a post by one of the authors collaborating on Bailey's book: "Frank Bailey's Memoir Leaked to Press (and a surprise)."

Alaska Dispatch has posted "Frank Bailey: Sarah Palin knowingly broke election law."

Alaska Dispatch has posted "Why did Palin name a pro-choice judge to the Alaska Supreme Court?"


Update of Saturday morning, February 19, 2011:

Sean Cockerham and Kyle Hopkins of The Anchorage Daily News write:
A leaked manuscript by one of Sarah Palin's closest aides from her time as governor charges that Palin broke state election law in her 2006 gubernatorial campaign and was consumed by petty grievances up until she resigned.

The unpublished book by Frank Bailey was leaked to the media and widely circulated on Friday.

The manuscript opens with an account of Palin sending Bailey a message saying "I hate this damn job" shortly before she resigned as Alaska's governor in July 2009, less than three years into her four-year term. The manuscript goes on for nearly 500 pages, a mixture of analysis, gossip and allegation.

Copies of the manuscript were forwarded around Alaska political circles on Friday. The Daily News received copies from multiple sources, the first from author Joe McGinniss, who is working on his own Palin book. McGinniss didn't respond to a message asking where he obtained the manuscript and the reason he circulated it. ...
There is much more at the Daily News' article by Cockerham and Hopkins.

The Daily News' political blog, here, continues to be updated. It includes Becky Bohrer's AP article, along with posts about an "obsession" with punishing Mike Wooten (Sarah Palin's former brother-in-law), about the making of an "illegal" campaign ad (with video), and about Frank Bailey becoming "Todd's go-to guy."


Update of Monday morning, February 21, 2011:

At Mudflats, one of the manuscript's co-authors has posted a letter from the co-authors to Joe McGinniss. The letter claims that McGinniss has violated copyright law and impaired the authors' ability to market the manuscript: "Say it Ain’t So, Joe! Co-Author of Leaked Palin Book Speaks Out." Joe McGinniss is the author of Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin, which, after several delays, is now scheduled to be published on September 20, 2011.

The NY Daily News has "Sarah Palin tell-all written by ex-aide Frank Bailey promises 'revelations and insights' into ex-gov."

The Washington Post has "Ex-aide slams Palin in leaked manuscript."

ABC News has "Sarah Palin Bashed in Former Aide's Leaked Manuscript."

CNN has "Report: Ex-aide slams Palin in leaked book."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan has "More Scoop On Palin: Her Reliable Media Mouthpieces. Sullivan writes: "[...] Bailey was as close to the Palins as anyone from Palin's first race for governor to the bitter end, is a rock-ribbed Fox News Republican, has vast amounts of firsthand data (the emails he has published alone reveal a lot), has contempt for Trig skeptics like yours truly, and comes to a simple conclusion in retrospect: Palin is a dangerous, vindictive, incompetent, congenital liar who has no business in any public office. Any publisher interested in the truth about Palin (Harper Collins therefore need not apply) should fight to publish it." Yes, it is a simple conclusion -- long overdue -- and it's good to see that Sullivan realizes that "Trig skepticism" misses the mark: there were and are real, verfiable issues about Palin's fitness for office. "Trig skepticism" is a Palin-circus sideshow that helps Palin more than it hurts her.

Tom Kavanagh of Politics Daily has served up: "As Governor, Palin Allegedly Told Aide: 'I Hate This Job'." Kavanagh states, concerning "Troopergate:" "The Alaska State Personnel Board investigated the matter and ruled that Palin did not violate state ethics laws;" however, a bi-partisan panel of the Alaska legislature found differently (re: Branchflower).

Sarah Palin Parades Her Ignorance on Long Island

Sarah Palin was paid to appear at the Long Island Association, yesterday. Jeff Zeleny of the NY Times attended, and he wrote about her appearance in the Times' The Caucus blog. Zeleny noticed these statements made by Palin:
Ms. Palin said she believed that increasing the Treasury Department’s legal borrowing limit would simply “create the allowance for big spenders to get in there,” rather than save the country from defaulting on its financial burdens. She said that “the government receives so much revenue” every day that she doubted the money would run out to pay for critical operations.
And
“People are ready for our governmental establishment to be shaken up,” Ms. Palin said, adding that if she decided to become a candidate, she would campaign aggressively face-to-face with voters, not simply from a distance. “In a heated primary, it allows for some great debate – very heated discourse – all those things we need in order for those voters to decide.”
And
When asked why she opposed all types of gun control – with the moderator openly disagreeing with her – she said that the “bad guys” aren’t going to follow the laws, anyway.
And
And as she talked about the escalating price of gas and groceries, she said, “It’s no wonder Michelle Obama is telling everybody you better breast-feed your baby – yeah, you better – because the price of milk is so high right now!”


At the same appearance by Palin, Politico's Ben Smith noticed that as she addressed the situation in Egypt, she expressed a lack of confidence in democracy and Egypt's voters:
"We also have to be very wary of who it is that is being invited ot the table to discuss how the reform in that country is taking place," Palin said. "I’m talking about the Muslim Brotherhood," she said, deploring what she saw as "almost an invitation to them to sit at the table and talk."

"If they are radical enough to have already spoken against liberties and freedoms, then you have to wonder, is this a good deal for Egypt and for America's interest -- certainly for our ally Israel [whose] security and their safety ... must be forefront on our list of concerns," she said.

"We have to make sure that a group like the Muslim Brotherhood isn’t invited in to take over because that certainly would defeat all the purposes of those protesters," she said.

On Tuesday, The Washington Post's Eugene Robinson wrote "The GOP loves freedom, but not for Egypt." Palin may not support democracy in Arab nations, because she -- or rather the source of her talking points -- may be concerned that people unfriendly to Israel could be elected. Does Palin know that Israel itself is on the verge of becoming a majority Arab country? Will Israel continue to be a democracy? An attempt to strangle a potential democracy in a country neighboring Israel is an attempt to kick the can down the road; it isn't a long-term solution to any problem Israel may face. A description of Israel's demographics can be read in Wikipedia's "Arab Citizens of Israel."

All of Palin's views, expressed on Long Island, can be easily rebutted or can be used to show that she hasn't the knowledge and experience necessary to be President. The views that she expressed can even be used to show that she has no interest in government or governance. Papers are due in fifty minutes -- just kidding! But, seriously, Palin is too ignorant to know how ignorant she is.

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Why Sarah Palin (TM) ?

From Yahoo! News (Where else?)

Sarah Palin has two noted and famous impersonators who travel the country pretending to be the former governor of Alaska. Palin impersonator Patti Lyons showed up at the Conservative Political Action Conference Feb. 11, on a day the real Sarah Palin said she would be absent. Lyons was dressed in Palin's red outfit, wore her glasses and even shook hands with real politicians.

Are these impersonators the real reason Palin wants her name trademarked? Here's an examination of the case in light of this new development. Despite the application for a trademark being rejected, an impersonator is a good reason to have yourself branded and copyrighted if your persona is worth a lot of money.

If there are any people making money on Palin's visage, she would have a right to compensation with a trademark designation. A fake Palin probably couldn't demand her alleged $100,000 a pop speaking fee which she gets every time she draws a crowd. Any financial gain of other people would be minimal as compared to Mama Grizzly's monster salary, [but] any money made on the Palin brand should rightfully be hers if a trademark is allowed.

[T]here are limits to what Palin can do to prevent her name being used in a negative or harmful way. ...

... But a full-fledged impersonator probably draws the line. Comedian Gallagher sued his brother to stop using his name in 2000 to make money. For awhile Ron Gallagher worked fine using "Gallagher II" [at his] shows. But then he started booking larger venues which took away from Leo Gallagher (the real Gallagher) and his money. Then a lawsuit was filed, which Leo won.

It looks as though Sarah Palin will become a party pooper, if she trys to shutdown her impersonators.

Patti Lyons' website is here.

Patsy Gilbert's website is here (it autoplays music when you land on the page).

Update: But a better idea than stopping the impersonators -- If she'd just listen to good advice -- is to start a school for Sarah Palin impersonators. Each graduate would be licensed to impersonate her! The tuition might be -- I don't know -- is $25,000 too much? Then, Sarah could out-source her appearances. Suppose she paid an impersonator $10,000 for an appearance -- See! that license would be valuable -- she'd keep about 90% of a $100K fee. Profit! And she could appear in more than one place at once. Magic!

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Palin 2012 Hits Granite Wall

Jonathan Capehart of The Washington Post has some good news:
One too many political tea-leaf readers say that Sarah Palin, with her rock-star personality, loyal following and outsized influence on the Republican Party, could jump into the 2012 presidential race at the last minute and run off with the GOP nomination for president. This is in defiance of consistent and plain evidence that Palin is going nowhere fast. ...

Now a new poll from the University of New Hampshire ...

Now, here's where the news is really bad for Palin. ...

Lots can change between now and when the New Hampshire primary actually happens early next year. ...

But this much is clear: At the rate she's going, Palin will get nowhere near the Oval Office, let alone the Republican nomination. She has had two years to show the American people that she is not only worthy of the office but also worthy to be considered for the nomination. Her actions during this time have showed us time and again that she is more interested in playing a leader on television than actually being one.
Capehart's link to the "new poll" is a bad link, so here is a link to the poll results at The LA Times.

And there is more good news. As I wrote here, the addition of a chief-of-staff at SarahPAC is an indication of management failure, not a presidential bid. New York magazine has the news of two new departures from the PAC. One step forward, two steps backward. Is anyone surprised?

Salon, too, has an article, today, about Palin's fading prospects, here.

Do you love your freedoms?

Sarah Palin has been fond of asking, "Do you love your freedoms?" and hearing the crowd cheer. But in today's column, the Washington Post's Eugene Robinson makes the point that conservatives may not love freedom enough to trust voters to make good decisions. Robinson wrote of the recent events in Egypt:
... Meanwhile, protests sparked by the Egypt uprising are raging across the Arab world - Algeria, Jordan, Yemen, Bahrain. On Monday, the clamor for democracy surfaced in Iran with the first consequential street demonstrations against theocratic rule since 2009.

House Speaker John Boehner, at least, has come out forcefully on the side of freedom. But why the ambivalence from so many prominent conservatives?

For one thing - and I think this applies to most of the tongue-tied potential candidates - there's the fact that all of this is happening on Obama's watch. If everything turns out well, heaven forbid that the president get any credit.

The administration's public comments as the Egyptian revolution unfolded seemed to take two steps forward and one step back, but there was never any real question about Obama's sentiments. The United States was by no means in control of events, but the White House used whatever influence it had to push for a transition.

The conservative mantra has been: Obama Is Always Wrong. Therefore there must be something wrong with the way he handled Egypt - even if it appears, from what we've seen so far, that the result is a historic opening for democracy in the world's most troubled region.

The other possible explanation for the lukewarm conservative reaction is a lack of faith in our most cherished democratic values - at least where majority-Islam countries are concerned.

I'm not talking about Glenn Beck's paranoid fantasy of a vast leftist-Islamist conspiracy for world domination; that's a job for a licensed professional with a prescription pad. I'm talking about people such as former U.N. ambassador John Bolton, who told CPAC that "democracy as we see it" in Egypt would be all right but grumbled that "a democratic election can produce illiberal results."

In other words, some Egyptians might vote for candidates put forth by the Muslim Brotherhood. It is unlikely that the group would win a majority in free and fair elections - or even that a government headed by the Muslim Brotherhood, if it came to that, would necessarily be more dangerous or hostile than the Mubarak regime. But Bolton and some others seem to believe that only political parties of which the United States approves should be allowed to participate in Egyptian elections.

Former Sen. Rick Santorum, another presidential contender, used his CPAC speech to blast Obama's handling of Egypt; for weeks, Santorum has been claiming that elections there would lead straight to "sharia law." Pam Geller, the conservative blogger who led opposition to the Lower Manhattan mosque, crashed the CPAC conference and told an interviewer from Mother Jones magazine that Mubarak's fall was "catastrophic" and would lead to sharia law throughout the Middle East.

These conservatives are arguing that the world's 1.2 billion Muslims cannot be trusted to govern themselves. That's not what I call loving freedom.

To be fair, without claiming that Robinson is unfair, we see a profound distrust and lack of confidence in our institutions among some "liberals," too: They are the palinoiacs who are so frightened by Sarah Palin that they scream "bring her down," and "she mustn't be allowed to run." Those attitudes may be borne of an ignorance of our fundamental institutions: even if Palin were elected, she couldn't single-handedly pack people off to re-education camps, end civil rights progress or do any of the other things she may inspire fear for.

Saturday, February 12, 2011

Palin's Hiring of 'Chief of Staff' Evidence of Organizational Failure, not Presidential Candidacy

CNN reported:

Sarah Palin has added a veteran Republican strategist [Michael Glassner] to serve as chief-of-staff for her political action committee, Sarah PAC, CNN has learned. ...

And Politico reported:

Sarah Palin has hired a veteran operative to serve as a chief of staff to her loosely organized team, one of the biggest indicators yet that the former Alaska governor is leaning toward a run for the White House. ...

The fact is that nobody -- Todd Palin? -- was officially in charge of SarahPAC. That lack of management has led to a lot of problems, so it shouldn't be surprising that the PAC should bring someone in with management (and fundraising) experience. To construe the appointment of a chief-of-staff as evidence that Palin is going to run is something -- well! -- something straight out of the fevered minds of palinistas and palinoiacs. CNN's characterization of Palin's team as "loosely organized" was echoed in Politico's post, which stated, "Glassner will be tasked with bringing greater organization to the far-flung and small staff that resides in several different states and time zones."

Palin's has been quite an amateurish organization and has been long overdue for a shakeup. Glassner's first task will be to organize the existing staff, to improve its discipline, fund raising, expenditures and reporting. Heads may roll; the existing staff must be professionalized before any consideration can be given to staffing-up in anticipation of a run, if one is being considered. Remember, too, that if Palin runs, it won't be SarahPAC that manages the campaign.

There is a little deja vu in Glassner's appointment. Glassner became involved in Palin's VP campaign just before the VP debate, which, in 2008, according to The Wall Street Journal, might have been an epic fail:

... in recent days, Gov. Palin flubbed quasi-mock debates in New York City and Philadelphia, some operatives said. Finger-pointing began, and then intensified after her faltering interview with CBS anchorwoman Katie Couric. However, she performed better when she took questions from the press after touring Ground Zero and remarked about her parents' visit there after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Her performance also sparked negative responses from some conservative pundits, and she has slipped in some polls. Last week, nearly half the respondents in a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll said she is unqualified to be president, while one in three said they were "not at all" comfortable with the idea of Gov. Palin as vice president, up five points from a poll in early September.

Until the weekend, the highest levels of the McCain campaign were focused on Sen. McCain's response to the financial crisis and his own debate against Sen. Barack Obama.

The McCain campaign has put in place several other well-regarded advisers to Gov. Palin, including head of vice-presidential operations Michael Glassner, who has worked for former Sen. Bob Dole, and Mr. Eskew, who worked for President George W. Bush's campaign and administration. ...

The Journal's report lends credence to what we're told in Game Change (pg. 401):

Given the acuteness of [Nicolle] Wallace's concern, McCain's advisers felt they had to bring the candidate into the loop that Saturday. Bluntly, they described to him their unease about Palin's mental state. McCain suggested that they move the debate prep to his spread in Sedona [Arizona]. Give her room to breathe. Let her bring her family. A change of scenery might do her good. Cindy would be there to support Palin, and a doctor friend of the McCains would be on hand to observer her.

Perhaps the PAC's namesake hasn't yet become organized, or has become disorganized, or ... . An interesting question is: Who realized that the PAC was disorganized and decided that a chief-of-staff should be hired?

Some of Glassner's other experience with the McCain/Palin campaign was reported in The Washington Post's "McCain Lists Top Bundlers," and The Huffington Post's "McCain Bundler, Booted Over Role In FCC-Fined Telecom, Now Staffs Palin."

Update, February 13, 2011: Added the quote from the Wall Street Journal. Reading between the lines, it may be that Glassner, who was head of operations for the 2008 VP campaign, became more directly involved with the candidate after her disappointing interview with Katie Couric and poor performance during debate preparations.

Palin 2012 Yawnfest - Saturday, February 12, 2011

One woman wasn't about to let CPAC attendees be disappointed by Sarah Palin's fourth failure to attend the annual conservative conference. She showed up, and, according to NPR:

... Young adults whipped out camera phones and encircled the performer, Patti Lyons, who could barely make her way across to an awaiting television set.

"I wonder where her husband is," one visibly star-struck young man told a friend. "She said she wasn't coming."

A Fox News reporter grabbed his microphone, pushed through the crowd and asked where the woman was from.

"I'm from Wasilla," she said with much perkiness, perfecting sounding out the Wah-silla inflection. "How about you?"

She continued: "I'm here...to see these beauuu-ti-ful, young taaaalented patriotic Americans." ...


CBS reported how John Thune compared himself to Sarah Palin at CPAC:

South Dakota Sen. John Thune is considered a relatively strong potential presidential contender, but in the national political arena, he is relatively unknown. He acknowledged as much today at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington while getting in a light jab at his potential primary opponent Sarah Palin.

"The truth is, I've never held a book signing," Thune said. "I've been to Iowa plenty of times, but it's usually on my way to South Dakota."

"And the closest I've come to being on a reality show is C-SPAN's live coverage of the Senate floor," he said in allusion to Palin's TLC reality show, eliciting laughter from the conservative crowd. Instead, he said, he spends most of his time in the halls of the Senate or speaking with his constituents in South Dakota. ...


The NY Daily News' "CPAC straw poll lists GOP 2012 presidential nominees, including Palin, Romney, Gingrich, Bachmann" has on online poll of its own for your consideration.


Patti Lyons has a website: Patti Lyons: The World's Premiere Governor Sarah Palin Impressionist


Update: USA Today states:

Rep. Ron Paul won the presidential straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference, finishing ahead of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney for the second year in a row. ...

... Paul garnered about 30% of the vote, with Romney getting 23%. The next closest finishers -- New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson -- got 6%. ...

There is no mention of the vote for Palin; she must have received less than 6%.

Thursday, February 10, 2011

Sarah Palin is Wilting!

The Boston Phoenix has editorialized about the demise of two political entertainers. Sarah Palin's fading -- flower? star? -- and Glenn Beck's self-destructing. Here is the "First case," which covers Palin:

First case: Sarah Palin. Alaska's former half-term governor has been masquerading as a political figure, when in fact she's the nation's highest-profile reality-TV star. Even the generally clueless John McCain has woken up to this. His seemingly diplomatic decision not to endorse any candidate in the 2012 Republican presidential primaries has widely been seen by political observers as an abandonment of his former running mate.

He's not alone. On the eve of last year's national elections, GOP hit man Karl Rove questioned Palin's presidential viability. And conservative egghead Charles Krauthammer concluded in effect that Palin offered more promise than payoff.

Even William Kristol, editor of the neoconservative Weekly Standard, has distanced himself from Palin's road show, saying on MSNBC that he's disappointed that Palin has failed at "framing the policy agenda."

This may not sound like a rebuke, but in political-speak it is the equivalent of saying that a moose could do a better job.

Kristol's kiss-off was guarded. He delivered it in a this-hurts-me-more-than-it-hurts-you tone of voice. He also left enough wiggle room to re-pledge for Palin should she start climbing in the polls.

But on the right, Kristol's agonizing reappraisal is hard to ignore. Kristol was Palin's godfather. He brought her into the Republican inner sanctum and sponsored her deliciously disastrous appointment to McCain's presidential ticket.

Palin's self-pitying remarks after the Tucson massacre claiming she was smeared as a hate monger, her ignorance about the events surrounding the US-USSR space race, and her dysfunctional response to the Egyptian revolution are all more or less standard stuff. ...

... Predicting what Palin will do in real life is, of course, risky business. Odds are that she will do what's good for her ego and her pocketbook. If running for president will satisfy one or both, then get ready for candidate Palin.

Meanwhile, the rest of us can sit back and enjoy the show as the big brains of American conservatism wake up to what most voters realized some time ago: Palin is a menace. ...


The Phoenix' entire editorial is "Sarah Palin Wilts as Glenn Beck Self Destructs."


Bill Kristol has actually abandoned Palin. The Washington Post's Right Turn column reported on December 1st of last year:

... Bill Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, (whose magazine has featured a number of conservative contenders and defended Palin from an onslaught of attacks during the campaign) comes right out with it when I ask his take on the state of the presidential race: "Ryan-Odierno 2012!" He adds, "You can quote me on that -- a wish and a prediction." That would be Gen. Ray Odinero, commander of our forces in Iraq. This may come as a shock to Palin fans and to those who perceived her as the favorite of the most influential weekly conservative magazine. But it won't surprise many Republican activists. ...

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Extenstion of Patriot Act defeated in the House, but wait ... .

NPR's "House GOP Leaders Blindsided By Patriot Act Defeat" has a fairly thorough account of yesterday's failure to pass an extension of the controversial Patriot Act, which was enacted in the wake of 9/11 and which broadened the government's surveillance powers. The Patriot Act has been described by Wikipedia:
... The Act dramatically reduced restrictions on law enforcement agencies' ability to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records; eased restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States; ...
The National Security Agency (NSA), according to Wikipedia, is authorised to "monitor, without search warrants, phone calls, e-mails, Internet activity, text messaging, and other communication involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S., even if the other end of the communication lies within the U.S." With this authority, the agency has carte blanche to intercept and record any communication entering or leaving the U.S. Given that authority, would anyone doubt that the agency would use it?

It may be reasonable to infer that all communications leaving and entering the country are intercepted and stored, even if the agency's only interest is, say, intelligence or terrorism. It may be necessary to intercept and store all communications, because it may be difficult to determine on-the-fly whether a particular communication is of interest, i.e., it may not be possible to decide whether a particular communication is of interest unless it can be associated with a communication made at another time, so the recording of all communications may be necessary if NSA is to perform its task effectively. The context, if any, of any particular communication may be necessary to determine whether that particular communication is of interest.

Closer to home, in the world of anti-palin blogs, the much touted "privacy" and "security" of overseas communication agents, such as the one operated by Patrick of Politicalgates, and formerly at Palingates, may well be nonexistent if a communication bound for the agent originates in this country, or a U.S. resident is the recipient of a communication originated by the agent. Now, whether the NSA or any other agency that it may collect data for considers rumors about Sarah Palin interesting is another matter. That such communications may not be private was made abundantly clear -- whether or not government intercepts/records them -- when the blogger himself published a communication made via the "private," "secure" agent.

A 2/3 vote was required to extend the Patriot Act on Tuesday, and NPR's article makes clear that the House's GOP leadership will try again to renew the Patriot Act with a procedure requiring only a simple majority vote.

Renewal of the Patriot Act is supported by President Obama.

Palin failin' in Georgia and Tennessee

From TPM:

Add Georgia and Tennessee to the list of Republican leaning states that President Obama could win if Sarah Palin emerges as the GOP presidential nominee.

Two recent polls have found Obama leading Palin in hypothetical 2012 match-ups in those states, both of which went for John McCain in the 2008 election. Vanderbilt's Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions released a poll this week showing Obama ahead of Palin 42% to 37% in Tennessee, a state Obama lost by 15 points in the last election. And in Georgia, an Insight poll found Obama with a four point lead over Palin, 47% to 43%. ...

... The polls are the latest findings to show that Palin would likely get blown out in a general election against Obama. In recent weeks, polls found Palin up by just one point in the Republican strongholds of Texas and and Nebraska, while trailing by seven in another red state, South Dakota. No Democratic presidential nominee has carried South Dakota or Nebraska since 1964, when President Lyndon Johnson won all but six states. ...

Public Policy Polling recently published results of a poll that led PPP's Tom Jensen to write, "In the last two weeks we've found Palin up 1 point in Texas, up 1 point in Nebraska, and down 8 points in South Dakota. What those numbers indicate is that she would only really be safe in states that Republicans won by at least 20 points in 2008. And there weren't very many of those. It's becoming clearer and clearer that a Palin nomination would be Goldwater redux for the GOP." Jensen's post was linked-to in TPM's "Palin would likely get blown out" post, above.

Politico recently wrote about another PPP poll that found Palin failin' in Arizona.

"Sarah Palin to take our country back ... to 1964" links to additional information about 1964's Goldwater vs. Johnson race.

Words Shot Out of Sarah Palin's Face

Balloon Juice's Angry Black Lady has provided some editorial comments to part of Sarah Palin's interview, which followed her recent screech speech at former President Reagan's former ranch on February 5th:
“It’s a difficult situation,” Ms. Palin told the Christian Broadcasting Network. “This is that 3 a.m. White House phone call, and it seems for many of us trying to get that information from our leader in the White House, it seems that that call went right to the answering machine.”

“And nobody yet has, nobody yet has explained to the American public what they know [what who knows?], and surely they [they who?] know more than the rest of us know [us who?] who it is who will be taking the place of Mubarak [what the—how are they to know who is taking the place of Mubarak when Mubarak himself can’t seem to make up his damn mind] and no, not, not real enthused [yes, but are you jazzed?] about what it is that that’s being done on a national level and from D.C. [Do you have any idea what you just said?] in regards to understanding all the situation there in Egypt. [The Situation is in Egypt?! Pics or GTFO.] And, in these areas [what areas? Alaska? Russia?] in that are so volatile right now, because obviously it’s not just Egypt but the other countries too [Which other countries, too? Can you name one? Didn’t think so.] where we are seeing uprisings, we know that now more than ever, we need strength and sound mind there in the White House [::blank stare::]. We need to know what it is that America stands for [truth, justice, and the American way! Duh.] so we know who it is that America will stand with. [Anyone standing with you is standing with Stupid. That, we know.] And, we do not have all that information yet.” [All what information? What America stands for? Whether America has legs? I just—I can’t even.]

Read the whole post at "Some Words About Egypt and Obama Shot Out of Sarah Palin’s Face."

More can be read about Palin's speech and/or interview at Outside the Beltway (with video of Palin's interview with CBN's David Brody), at Washington Monthly ("Word salads are a dish best served cold.") and at the NY Times, which dared, had the audacity -- this is a real failure by Palin's internet cop, Rebecca Mansour -- to print:
... The dinner, which was at a far smaller venue than the big rallies Ms. Palin often attends, had tight security and rigid rules. She entered the room just before she spoke — forgoing the ritual of sitting through dinner and mingling with guests — and exited before the applause ended.

People were admonished to stay in their seats and not approach Ms. Palin as she walked through the room.

“We’d all like to jump up and give her a high-five, but please stay at your tables,” Kate Obenshain, vice president of the foundation, announced from the dais. “There will be no book signings or autographs.”

At the end of the evening, people were asked to put their own cameras away and retire to the second floor of the Reagan Ranch Center to have a professional photograph taken with Ms. Palin, which will be sent to them in the mail. ...

Sarah Palin got a lot of attention from that speech and interview, but I suspect that the interest is more of a watch-the-trainwreck sort than a run-sarah-run sort.

Thursday, February 3, 2011

Sarah Palin Quits CPAC a Fourth Time

ABC's The Note is reporting that Sarah Palin has declined an invitation to give the keynote address at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference. From Sarah Palin Turns Down Coveted Keynote Speaking Slot At CPAC Conference:
After skipping the popular Conservative Political Action Conference for the past three years, Sarah Palin has once again turned down the invitation of CPAC officials to address the conference this year.

CPAC organizers invited Palin to deliver the closing-night keynote speech on Saturday Feb. 12, immediately following the announcement of the results of CPAC’s annual presidential straw poll, but after several days of negotiations, she declined. ...
Officially, a "scheduling issue" prevents Palin from attending this year's conference.

2011 will mark the fourth year that Palin hasn't appeared. Last year, Palin stayed away from the conference, citing what she considered inappropriate business dealings between the American Conservative Union (ACU) and David Keene. (CPAC is a project of the ACU's foundation (the American Conservative Union Foundation) and is its largest annual conference. David Keene is Chairman of the ACU.) In 2009, Palin accepted an invitation to speak, but dropped out. In 2008, Palin dropped out at "the last minute."

This year, the Family Research Council and the Heritage Foundation are boycotting the conference, because GOProud, a gay conservative organization, is participating.

Why won't Sarah Palin go to CPAC? Perhaps there isn't a speaking fee. Or, perhaps she's not ready to face the fact that she's like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh in some respects; Beck delievered CPAC's keynote last year; Limbaugh delivered 2009's. Perhaps Palin's failure to appear is an expression of solidarity with the Family Research Council and the Heritage Foundation. Whatever the reason, she's missing the party: Michele Bachmann, Haley Barbour, Mitch Daniels, Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and John Thune, all of whom are being talked about as the Republican nominee in 2012, will be there.


Update:
Politico's Ben Smith noted that SarahPAC will have a presence at the conference, so, he thinks, Palin isn't aligning herself with those boycotting because GOProud is participating; rather, Smith cites Palin's past feuding with David Keene.

Politico's Andy Barr wrote a story last year, about last year's CPAC, "Palin rebuffs CPAC, Keene," which may provide some more insight about the feud between Palin and Keene:
... Keene has criticized Palin in the conservative press, telling Newsmax in July that she was "whining" about her press coverage and was not yet ready for primetime.

"Conservatives like her, but you've got to have more than that," Keene told the outlet. "You've got to be more than a rock star. If in fact she's interested in the presidency, she has got to establish herself as someone you can envision in the Oval Office. And it's become more difficult to envision than it was at the time of the election." ...


Update: CNN's Political Ticker noted: "Palin declined similar invitations from the group in 2010 and 2009. But the decision to skip the event this year will be treated with fresh scrutiny in light of the fact she has expressed interest in running for president and nearly every other likely 2012 candidate will be there ... ."


Update:
NY Times' The Caucus blog has a post, here.


Update:
In "Why Palin snubbed CPAC," Politico's Andy Barr adds the boycott to Palin's feud with Keene to explain why Palin is a no-show.


Update:
The Washington Post's Right Turn column is becoming skeptical about Palin.

Palin failin' in Arizona

From Politico:

Even in Republican Arizona, Barack Obama has a healthy lead over Sarah Palin.

With the state swinging away from Democrats, having Palin on the ballot come general election time next year is Obama's best hope of winning the Grand Canyon State, according to a new poll. Democrats have taken Arizona in only one presidential race since 1952.

The survey by Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling found Obama topping Palin 49 percent to 41 percent in the state. That's significantly better than he fares against other candidates — Obama trails Mitt Romney by 6 points, Mike Huckabee by 4 points, and is locked in a tie with Newt Gingrich. ...

The article goes on, briefly, to attribute Palin's poor numbers to a preference for Obama: 51% disapprove of Obama's performance and 57% view Palin unfavorably.