That noisy astroturf organization, conservatives4palin, is crowing about a CNN poll showing, they claim, that Sarah Palin is "running about even" with Mitt Romney in the race for the republican nomination. Apparently, they didn't get the memo about Romney being knocked off his frontrunner's perch by Rick Perry, and they're wrong about Palin being close to Romney in one very important area: electability.
An interesting item in the poll is the response to question fourty-two, which asked republicans, "Which Republican candidate do you think has the best chance of beating Barack Obama in the general election next November?" Only 7% of the respondents think Palin has the best chance, while 42% and 26% think Perry and Romney, respectively, have the best chance. And another question, thirty-eight, asks republicans, "If you had to choose, would you rather see the Republican party nominate a presidential candidate who agrees with you on every issue that matters to you but may not be able to beat Barack Obama, or a presidential candidate who can beat Barack Obama but does not agree with you on every issue that matters to you?" An overwhelming 75% of the respondents want a candidate they think can beat Obama, regardless of whether they agree with that candidate on every issue. On the all-important matter of electability, Palin is running a distant third, behind Romney.
c4p's post is "CNN’s Don Lemon: “[Governor Palin], the Student Has Become the Teacher;” however, my (liberal? socialist?) browser shows an article titled, "Don Lemon: Watching Palin's transformation." The c4p post opens with, "CNN’s Don Lemon has a great article on the day CNN releases a poll showing Governor Palin running about even with Mitt Romney," then only quotes a large part of Lemon's opinion. Lemon's opinion clearly indicates that he hasn't paid attention to Palin since 2008. There hasn't been a transformation, at all. One reason she was selected to be the vice presidential candidate was that she relishes the role of "attack dog." Both parties are loathe to have the presidential candidate attack the opposition, because it is considered to be unpresidential. The republicans, particularly, select a vice presidential candidate for his or her ability to play the role of attack dog, and they introduced Palin with great fanfare as a pit bull in lipstick. But if Lemon had been paying attention, he might have noticed that Palin has never stepped out of that role. She carps at the president for any reason, real or imagined, all the time. She has so firmly cemented her attack dog role in the public's imagination that she is not perceived to be presidential. That is her biggest problem, should she decide to run. An overwhelming 75% of republicans want a candidate who -- they think -- has the best chance of being elected, even if that candidate's views don't mirror their own.
Perhaps Don Lemon's post was meant to be humorous or ironic. It does claim that Sarah Palin is like Pygmalion's Eliza Doolittle, who needed a voice coach and lacked some manners. Interestingly, that characterization is at odds with the notion that Palin burst onto the national scene fully prepared to be president. Has she (Palin) been seeing a voice coach? Has she acquired any manners? Whatever ... it can be unwise to compare a living person with a fictional character.
CNN's poll, in .pdf format, is linked-to in their post "New CNN Poll: Perry on top when it comes to electability." The .pdf poll can be read directly via this link.
The Washington Post has "In ‘Doonesbury,’ Palin biography ‘The Rogue’ gets a comic-strip tease," which is an interesting read about the comic strip 'Doonesbury' and its panels about Joe McGinniss' new book “The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin.” McGinniss is a very good writer, and his book should be an interesting read, too. In today' post, McGinniss has today's 'Doonesbury,' in which "Hedley" explodes the myth that Sarah Palin doesn't read.
There is a move afoot to offer a reward for proof that Sarah Palin gave birth to Trig Palin, with, apparently, a birth certificate being considered "proof." That is a significant development, because implicit in the offer is a belief that the photos that some claim prove Palin wasn't pregnant aren't proof of anything at all. And, apparently, people planning to offer the reward are so confident the proof won't be forthcoming that they haven't raised the $10,000 reward and may be more concerned about the cost (one estimate is $500) of placing an ad to offer the reward. A refusal to even consider the possiblility that Palin gave birth to the child has apparently foreclosed a consideration of what might happen if a birth certificate appears.
Something that hasn't been considered is that the child's guardians are the only ones legally able to release a birth certificate. $10,000 isn't likely to get the attention of the Palins -- $1 Million might, but $10 Million would almost certainly get their attention. Without proof -- either way -- from the guardians, the reward's offerers may either get a forged document or a genuine document provided by someone not legally able to provide it. In either of those two cases, the offering of the reward could be considered to have induced someone to break the law. That is known as subornation, which can be illegal. It could even be considered to be an illegal act if no one responds to the ad, that is, an attempt to suborn an illegal act. What about conspiracy to suborn? How much time could they get? It takes an open mind to consider the possibilities.
The planning to offer a reward has been gleaned from the comments in recent posts at Laura Novak's blog and Political Gates. Brad Sharlott, who wrote that the idea for a reward came from someone known as "Leadfoot," has been drafting the ad and soliciting input from the readers of those blogs. At one point, he asked which would be better: proof that she did or proof that she didn't? It remains to be seen whether the offer will ever appear. I hope, for the sake of their reputations, that they don't consider a lack of response to such an offer to be "proof" that the proof they're seeking doesn't exist.
What is their rationale for offering the reward? Do they have one? Does this latest effort only serve to confirm a view that their efforts have some affinity with those of the Keystone Cops?
Breaking: In "Johnston writes of Bristol Palin's pregnancy," it is said 'Johnston says when Bristol found out her mother, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, was expecting a baby she responded she should be having a baby, not her mother. He says she told him in March 2008, "let's get pregnant."'
Update: ABC's The Note has "Fred Malek: ‘Too Late’ for Palin to Run; GOP Nominee Will Be Perry or Romney."
Update: Aside from The Washington Post's article about the Doonesbury strip, there is USA Today's "'Doonesbury' takes a look at Palin book" and Politico's "Palin book previewed in ‘Doonesbury’."
Update: An alert reader noticed that The Chicago Tribune has pulled 'Doonesbury.' Andrew Sullivan wrote about it in "Rogue Alert, Ctd." Sullivan seems to think that McGinniss' book will create a "whirlwind."
Update: Wonkette has "Chicago Tribune Gitmos Comic Strip For Talking Smack About Sarah Palin."