"The Undefeated,” a flattering new documentary about Sarah Palin, has inked a distribution deal with North America’s second-largest movie theater chain [AMC] for a July 15 release. ...This might be interesting to see, if it catches on with the public, just for the insights into film editing it would offer.
... The film, which Palin has seen but has no involvement with, casts the former Alaska governor and vice-presidential nominee as the hero and epitome of the tea party movement — an ordinary citizen stirred to action to restore common sense to government.
It leaves out or downplays many of the controversies that have dogged Palin. Bannon said they didn’t fit into the story the film sought to tell.
Jonathan Capehart's "Rollins slap at Palin shows Bachmann isn’t afraid of a fight" explains "why an attack on Palin is a safe and potentially beneficial move on Bachmann’s part."
Hero of the tea party movement? Politico's "Will rivalry make Sarah Palin run?" may be looking for a Palin/Bachmann catfight:
... Bachmann, a native Iowan who is strongly attractive to the same social conservative, tea party forces who favored Huckabee, is suddenly positioned to take the first GOP contest by storm.
Team Palin is likely in panic mode. It fears Bachmann can win Iowa and become the new leader of the GOP’s tea party, social conservative wing. It might even be enough to get Bachmann the presidential nomination that Palin covets.
The Washington Post's Alexandra Petri writes about historical revisionism in "American History X — Palin, Paul Revere, Wikipedia, and our passion for revision." Someone is always wrong on the internet.
Was Margaret Thatcher disgraced when an "ally" said, "Lady Thatcher will not be seeing Sarah Palin. That would be belittling for Margaret. Sarah Palin is nuts?" Some of Palin's fans seem to think so, according to "Sarah Palin snub by Margaret Thatcher aides infuriates US rightwing." Don't be surprised to see Palin show-up in London on July 4th, where Thatcher is going to be present at the unveiling of a Ronald Reagan statue. Didn't she crash the "Rolling Thunder" party?
NPR's "Sarah's Choice: Email Dump Will Add To Doubt That She Will Run" offers up five indications that Palin won't run: 1) The wall of negative numbers has grown too tall; 2) The bus tour of the Eastern seaboard that began Memorial Day; 3) When in New York, Palin ate pizza and talked politics with Donald Trump; 4) Another key stop in Gotham was a visit with Palin's boss, Roger Ailes; and 5) The aftermath of the Paul Revere gaffe.
The e-mail dump is going to be available on-line and Bill Dedman of msnbc.com writes:
... Among those emails withheld from the public were those detailing potential state appointees, judicial candidates and others having to do with legal advice, settlements and staffing issues. Others appeared to have nothing to do with state business, such as one message about "children, dinner, and prayer."
Others removed from public view include several having to do with newspapers and editorials, including two citing a “response to Juneau Empire article.” Another two related to a “child custody matter,” and a meeting with “W. Monegan,” who had served as the Alaska public safety commissioner until being dismissed in July 2008 in connection with the scandal known as "Troopergate." ...
The e-mails are going to be made available at Crivella West, but it may take some time to scan all of them in order to make them available on-line.
The Washington Post's Jena McGregor, anticipating the e-mails' release, may have found something Sarah Palin has in common with Anthony Weiner! Indeed! "Anthony Weiner scandal appears to quiet congressmen on Twitter."
Finally, Sarah Palin recently illustrated her ignorance of foreign policy in an attack on President Obama. At one time, we agreed with the Russians that nuclear parity was a desirable goal. Call it "mutually assured destruction," if you like; it's the world we live in. There are two capabilities with respect to this policy: offense and defense. When the two sides are roughly equal and then one side begins to develop or hints at developing a defensive capability, the other side will say, "Unfair!" Why? Because, if one side improves its defense, that improvement would diminish -- perhaps nullify -- the other side's offensive capabilities. The strategic balance of power would shift. We would no longer have nuclear parity. A new arms race would begin.
Palin is apparently unaware that her hero, Ronald Reagan, was comfortable with nuclear parity. Palin's contention that bolstering Russian nuclear defense capablities will result in a new arms race is the opposite of what will happen; it will forestall a new arms race, because it will maintain the balance of power. Palin claims to be interested in reducing government expenditures, so she would be well advised to consider that point. Finally, President Obama said, "We [are] committed to working together so that we can find an approach and configuration that is consistent with the security needs of both countries, that maintains the strategic balance and deals with potential threats that we both share."
Palin's ignorance of foreign policy can be attributed to an ignorance of recent history. What does she read?