Palin's Q&A + fun

Zombie blogging a zombie candidate

2011-11-01T00:01:00.000-07:00

Sarah Palin could be a zombie candidate. If she decides to run, she'll have to endure months of ridicule about her impulsiveness, indecisiveness and flip-flopping. Would that stop her?

Zombies never die, so the blog is going to go dormant unless and until Sarah comes back to life, politically. But right now there isn't anything more to say about her. She's being ignored by the media, because they have actual candidates to cover. Sure, she may continue to rant and rave via Facebook and Twitter, but I've never thought any of that warranted a response.

It's better to be for something than against something, so I recommend that everyone remember to vote. For 2012 there are 61 congressional seats held by Republicans in districts that voted for President Obama in 2008. Many of the tea partiers elected in 2010 could be voted out next year, if people get out and vote.

Hasta la vista.

Happy Halloween! Find a scary movie

2011-10-31T13:11:00.000-07:00

Today is Halloween, and it's not too late to grab a scary movie. The Washington Post has a slideshow of stills from nineteen "scary" movies. This photo is a still from The Texas Chainsaw Massacre of 1974. I've seen the 2003 remake, which was very good, and I have the original on my wishlist. The original is relatively expensive, so it may be excellent.

The other stills at the slideshow are from: Nosferatu, The Phantom of the Opera, Psycho, The Birds, Rosemary's Baby, Night of the Living Dead, The Exorcist, Jaws, The Omen, Carrie, Halloween, Alien, The Amityville Horror, Friday the 13th, The Shining, Scanners, An American Werewolf in London, Poltergeist, and The Thing.

The Washington Post's article is "From ‘Paranormal Activity’ to ‘Nosferatu,’ a look at the scariest movies of all time." Interestingly, a still from Paranormal Activity isn't included in the slideshow, but there is a link to "‘Paranormal Activity 3’: Is the found footage horror movie played out?"

The Los Angeles Times has "50 Creature Features," "Celluloid mutants, werewolves and blobs -- the stuff of nightmares. Play the videos, and vote for the greatest monster movie ever."

I like the Childs Play movies, which didn't make either list. "Chuckie" is scary!

I'll watch 1994's Ed Wood, which received an Academy Award for Martin Landau's makeup. Landau played Bela Lugosi.

Uh-oh! NBC confirms Herman Cain's accuser in sexual harassment case received a settlement.

2011-10-31T10:23:00.000-07:00

"NBC News has confirmed that one woman received a settlement from the National Restaurant Association after complaining about inappropriate sexual conduct by Herman Cain."

"NBC News is not disclosing the name of the woman nor characterizing who she is." ...

See "NBC confirms one Cain accuser received cash settlement."

Update: Politico has a story, "Herman Cain accused by two women of inappropriate behavior."

Young Turks (VIDEO) and L.A. Times on Rick Perry's Donors + Bonus full "drunk" video -- Twofer VIDEO!

2011-10-31T07:07:00.000-07:00

The Young Turks did a show about how well Rick Perry's donors do in Texas:

The L.A. Times' original reporting referred to at the beginning of the video is "Gov. Rick Perry's big donors fare well in Texas."

Here is a complete video of Perry at a fundraiser for New Hampshire's Cornerstone Action, "an advocacy group that has been pushing for repeal of the state's same-sex marriage law." He doesn't appear to be "drunk."

TIME Magazine has "Tongue-Tied Texan: The New Rick Perry Sounds a Lot Like the Old Rick Perry."

Palin Family Circus News -- Friday, October 28, 2011

2011-10-28T09:21:00.000-07:00

E!Online's Marc Malkin writes, in "Does Julianne Moore Nail Sarah Palin? You Betcha!"

We cannot wait to see Game Change, HBO's adaptation of the book of the same name about the 2008 presidential election.

Julianne Moore plays Sarah Palin. If what we've seen and heard is any indication of things to come, her portrayal is downright freaky.

Sarah Paulson, who plays Republican strategist Nicole Wallace in the film, says Moore could easily pass for the failed vice presidential candidate.

"I will say there were several times where I'd be standing there on set and she would walk by and I would see her peripherally," Paulson told me while promoting her new awards season favorite, Martha Marcy May Marlene (in theaters now). "I'd take a quick glance and I'd be like, 'Why the hell is Sarah Palin on our set?' It's so weird.["]

There are a couple of interesting video's at the E!Online story: Ted Casablanca's "Pissed List: Bristol Palin," and "Levi Johnston Spills Palin Secrets." I would have embedded one of them, but it autoplayed when it was embedded.

According to Pop2it's "Julianne Moore as Sarah Palin in 'Game Change' first-look photo," Game Change will also include "Woody Harrlson as Steven Schmidt, McCain's senior advisor, "CSI's" Larry Sullivan as Palin's deputy chief of staff Chris Edwards and "Temple Grandin's" Melissa Farman as Bristol."

There are two hotel room scenes from Game Change that should be in the movie: 1) the morning of the Katie Couric interview, on page 398 and 2) debate prep, on pages 401-2. On page 401, Sarah Palin tells Nicolle Wallace, "If I'd known everything I know now, I would not have done this." Those were clues that she'd never run again. Don't miss the movie!

They're spying on you! A new website reveals that "Sarah Palin’s 683,681 Twitter followers are likely to be religious married parents who like reading books." That may be true, but "Charlie Sheen’s Twitter 5.1 million-strong audience are iPhone users, tweet a lot and 'like to party'." Take that! Sarah Palin. -- From "New site lets celebrity Twitter users ‘know their followers’"

SarahPAC finally got it's act together and obtained an SSL certificate for sarahpacdonate.com. An earlier certificate expired on 10/21; the new one was issued on 10/25 and expires on 10/24/2012. This time, they might set a reminder in their calendar/appointment software. Set it, forget it, then a reminder will go off before it expires ... Organization 101.

The circus news seems to be going the way of the hard news. With the Palins in hiding, there isn't much going on, so enjoy a palin-free weekend! Week? Month? Year?

Does the Internet make us dumb?

2011-10-27T12:12:00.000-07:00

Jonathan Kay, writing in Canada's National Post, considers how video could be oversimplifying political issues: "The political act of explaining why one likes, or doesn't like, a particular politician or policy once required thought and argument - effort, in other words. Now, it's so much easier: You just paste a single YouTube link to your Facebook page, and you're done. On to the next issue."

Kay cites two examples: a video made by "left-wing filmmakers" at a Sarah Palin book signing, and a video made by "Lazy conservatives who instinctively are repelled by the Occupy Wall Street movement, but can't be bothered to intellectually engage with the issue, ... ."

Kay goes on to write:

... I'm old enough to remember the early 1990s, a time when starry-eyed futurists believed the Internet would make all of us smarter. We would learn new languages, surf newspapers from around the world, cultivate international pen pals, become more enlightened people by exposing ourselves to different opinions. Twenty years later, it turns out that all this was starry-eyed nonsense: All we want from the web is to have our own ideological biases read back to us in the most hysterical and entertaining form possible - preferably with neat little YouTube links that we can pass around to our friends.

Experts call it the "confirmation bias" - our natural psychological attraction toward data or anecdotes that serve to support our pre-existing attitudes and bigotries. It's something that always has been part of human nature. But the combination of social media with cheap online video technology has turbocharged the confirmation bias to the point where rational political dialogue is in danger of extinction. ...

Is "confirmation bias" a problem? Somewhere, I've read that the internet is appealing because people can get their "news" on the internet without ever encountering a disagreeable opinion.

I never expected to learn new languages with the internet. I am able to read several newspapers. Years ago, the internet wasn't widely used; now it's available and used by a lot more people. The audience has expanded.

If it's any consolation, the "left-wing" video has been viewed almost 2,000,000 times; the "lazy conservative" video has only 200,000 hits, so far.

Jonathan Kay's complete post is here. By the way, the woman speaking in the "lazy conservative" video was a substitute teacher in L.A. She has been fired.

Is the Declaration of Independence legal?

2011-10-26T13:37:00.000-07:00

The BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) has an interesting article titled, "Is the US Declaration of Independence illegal?" It describes a recent debate between British and American lawyers over the Declaration's legality.

British and American lawyers might be inclined to disagree over the legality of the Declaration. But why? The Declaration had fifty-six signers, many of whom were wealthy, and the last sentence of the Declaraion reads, "... for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

It's apparent that the signers were aware -- assuming they read the document -- that they weren't signing a simple petition; they were aware that they might lose their lives, fortunes and honor. So, it's fair to say that they were aware that what they were doing might be treasonous. Of course, because the revolution was successful, trying the signers for treason wasn't an option. In fact, by signing the Treaty of Paris in 1783, the British recognized that the United States of America was an independent nation.

Does anyone know why we're continually subjected to these faux "debates?"

Elitist Professor disses conspiracy theories

2011-10-26T09:54:00.000-07:00

"Wouldn’t It Be Cool if Shakespeare Wasn’t Shakespeare?" is Stephen Marche's reaction to the movie "Anonymous," which posits the notion that Shakespeare's plays weren't written by Shakespeare. Of conspiracy theories in general, Marche writes:

... You don’t have to be a truther or a birther to enjoy a conspiracy theory. We all, at one point or another, indulge fantasies that make the world seem more dangerous, more glamorous and, simultaneously, much more simple than it actually is. But then most of us grow up. Or put down the bong. Or read a book by somebody who is familiar with both proper historical methodology and the facts. The errors in “Anonymous,” I should point out, do not require great expertise to identify. Any undergraduate who has taken a course in Early Modern Drama, and paid attention, should be able to spot at least 10. (That might make a good exam, come to think of it.) ...
... The Shakespeare controversy, which emerged in the 19th century (at that time, theorists proposed that Francis Bacon was Shakespeare), was one of the origins of the willful ignorance and insidious false balance that is now rotting away our capacity to have meaningful discussions. The wider public, which has no reason to be familiar with questions of either Renaissance chronology or climate science, assumes that if there are arguments, there must be reasons for those arguments. Along with a right-wing antielitism, an unthinking left-wing open-mindedness and relativism have also given lunatic ideas soil to grow in. Our politeness has actually led us to believe that everybody deserves a say.
The problem is that not everybody does deserve a say. Just because an opinion exists does not mean that the opinion is worthy of respect. Some people deserve to be marginalized and excluded. There are many questions in this world over which rational people can have sensible confrontations: whether lower taxes stimulate or stagnate growth; whether abortion is immoral; whether the ’60s were an achievement or a disaster; whether the universe is motivated by a force for benevolence; whether the Fonz jumping on water skis over a shark was cool or lame. Whether Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare is not one of these questions. ...

Fun, huh? There is much more to Marche's article at The New York Times. The post's "comic strip" was obtained from the New York Times' article.

Counting Babies: Is the cat out of the bag?

2011-10-24T10:53:00.000-07:00

Last week, Brad Sharlott, Associate Professor of Journalism at Northern Kentucky University, posted 'Virtual Proof "Ruffles" is Trig: Time to Put the Ruffles Theory to Bed' at Political Gates. At first he posted a 3-picture composite of as many as three babies. Later, he updated the post with a 4-picture composite of as many as four babies. By the way, I am aware that the text of his post argued that there was only one baby.

This morning, there was this exchange in the comments of his post 'Ears, camera angles, and the "null hypothesis":'

Click the image to enlarge it.

Brad posted 'Ears, camera angles, and the "null hypothesis"' at his own blog, after posting at Political Gates.

From Ghostbuster's comment, the hypothesis is "the images we have access to can prove this point one way or another," and its null hypothesis is "the images we have access to cannot prove this point one way or another."

An alternative hypothesis is "the images we have access to cannot prove this point one way or another," and its null hypothesis is "the images we have access to can prove this point one way or another."

Sharlott wrote of the first hypothesis, "Exactly. That being true, you would be ill-advised to push the argument that there are different children involved. That is precisely the point I want everyone to take from this series I have done."

It appears as though Sharlott concurs with Ghostbuster's assertion that he (Sharlott) presented a "false dilemna."

Would Sharlott say of the alternate hypothesis, "you would be ill-advised to push the argument that there are not different children involved?"

Couldn't Sharlott conclude that it would be ill-advised to decide anything about the baby count with just one of those hypotheses? Either of them? Both of them?

The hypotheses are easier to understand written this way:

1) The images we have access to can prove this point, and its null hypothesis is the images we have access to cannot prove this point.

or

2) The images we have access to cannot prove this point, and its null hypothesis is the images we have access to can prove this point.

Here is an even easier way to grasp the concept of hypothesis (and null hypothesis). Hypothesis: Otomorphenanan is an effective ear analgesic; Null hypothesis: it is not an effective ear analgesic. It is a concept used in drug trials, but the first time I've seen it used to identify a person was at Brad Sharlott's post.

Whatever your opinion of the foregoing may be, there is one very important hypothesis that should have been tested first, before the post at Political Gates appeared: Does ear shape individually identify a person? Like fingerprints? DNA? Even facial features? Isn't the post at Political Gates dependent -- assuming for the sake of argument that the pictures appear to be pictures of the same baby -- dependent on an assumption that ear shape individually identifies a person? Even if that hypothesis could be established with 95% certainty, would the pictures presented at Political Gates be adequate for an analysis under that hypothesis? Are they sufficiently sharp? Are they controlled for camera, lens, sensor, camera and lens settings, lighting, camera distance from the subject, camera shift and camera rotation relative to the subject to draw any conclusions using a hypothesis (if it could be established) that ears individually identify a person?

With these hypotheses, it can be said that we cannot be absolutely sure, using the published pictures, whether there was one baby or more than one baby. And, of course, before using any pictures, we would have to be certain that ears individually identify a person. And then, of course, we would need to be sure that our pictures were adequate for analysis based on that hypothesis.

The cat that should be out of the bag is that Brad Sharlott doesn't know how many babies there were, even though he appeared to be arguing at Political Gates that there was only one baby.

Note: In his post at Political Gates, Professor Sharlott attacked the blogger whose post began the more-than-one-baby discussion. This morning, that blogger expressed his ideas about Sharlott's post, here.

That's my $0.02. I suppose we're going to see more slow Palin-news days.

SarahPAC's SSL certificate has expired!

2011-10-22T08:39:00.000-07:00

With online transactions, an SSL (Secure Socket Layer) certificate gives users some confidence that they've connected to the site that they think they've connected to. SSL also encrypts the transaction.

Yesterday morning, I learned that the SSL certificate for sarahpacdonate.com would expire that afternoon:

This morning, the certificate has indeed expired:

What does SarahPAC's certificate provider say about this?

That last image was obtained by clicking on the Trustwave "Click to Validate" button at sarahpacdonate.com. To do that, you will have to override your browser's warning that sarahpacdonate.com hasn't a valid certificate. Not recommended! If your browser doesn't warn you, something may be wrong with your browser.

What's the takeaway? Without a certificate issued by a Certificate Authority (CA), there are these problems: 1) No CA verifies that SarahPAC operates sarahpacdonate.com; 2) No CA has records indicating that SarahPAC is a valid entity; 3) Users of sarahpacdonate.com cannot be sure that their credit card and identity information are secure.

There may not be a lot of readers of this blog who are SarahPAC donors. If you're not a donor, there is no need to worry -- it may even be good for a laugh. It certainly indicates that SarahPAC is disorganized.

Don't trust sarahpacdonate.com without a valid certificate. Wait! What am I saying? Don't trust it even if it renews its certificate, unless you want to pay for Palin family vacations! Hahaha.

Note: All of the images can be enlarged by clicking on them.

For comparison, here is what clicking on the Trustwave "Click to Validate" button yielded yesterday when the certificate was valid:

Update: 27 October, 2011 ... sarahpacdonate.com appears to have renewed its certificate! What took them so long?

President Obama: All U.S. troops to leave Iraq by the end of the year

2011-10-21T11:06:00.000-07:00

From The New York Times' "U.S. Troops to Leave Iraq by Year’s End, Obama Says:"

WASHINGTON — President Obama said Friday that the last American soldier would leave Iraq by the end of the year, bringing to an end a nearly nine-year military engagement that cost the lives of 4,400 troops and more than $1 trillion, divided the American public, and came to define America’s role in the world.

Mr. Obama said that as of Jan. 1, 2012, the United States and Iraq would begin “a normal relationship between two sovereign nations, and equal partnership based on mutual interest and mutual respect.”

In a videoconference on Friday morning with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Mr. Obama told him of the administration’s decision, which grows out of an inability of the United States and Iraq to come to an agreement on leaving a few thousand military trainers in the country.

The United States had earlier agreed to exit Iraq by the end of the year and leave 3,000 to 5,000 troops in Iraq as trainers with some members of Congress advocating for a remaining force well. But after Iraq’s Parliament refused an American demand to give soldiers immunity from legal prosecution, the Pentagon changed in plans in recent weeks, scaling back even that meager number. ...

There are about 40,000 U.S. non-combat U.S. troops in Iraq now. The 3,000 to 5,000 troops that might have remained as trainers could be replaced by contractors willing to operate under Iraqi law. We shall see.

The war in Iraq was financed off-budget: "The Bush administration has chosen to finance the war by off-budget emergency supplemental appropriations, rather than include Iraq spending in the budget sent to Congress." In 2009, early in his administration, President Obama announced that the financial ruse set-up by the Republican administration of George Bush would no longer continue; see "Obama: No More War Spending Tricks."

Here is a CBS News video of the announcement, found here, where the 40,000 non-combat troop count was obtained. I believe that there are no U.S. combat troops in Iraq at this time.

Next year, Afghanistan! Germany! Japan! Korea! Where there are about 90,000, 50,000, 35,000 and 28,000 troops, respectively.

Sarah Palin paved the way for more crazy

2011-10-21T07:07:00.000-07:00

Jim Hightower, author of "Swim Against the Current: Even a Dead Fish Can Go With the Flow," wrote:

... God showed Sarah the door.

In breaking the news of her departure from the political stage, the Fox-made millionaire trotted out her family again, declaring that she decided not to run out of respect for them.

Uh-huh... and out of respect for polls showing that only 21-percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of her. Also — get this — three-fourths of Republican primary voters said they did not want her in the GOP presidential race!

But let's give her credit. Yes, she's shown herself to be an incoherent, frighteningly unqualified, and far-out political figure, but without her, the door would not have opened for Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and other incoherent, frighteningly unqualified, and far-out Republican contenders. ...

Click the post's title to read Hightower's article at The Colorado Springs Independent.

For some new, same-old, same-old news about Sarah Palin, see Mudflats' "After Three Years, the State Requests Another Extension for the Palin Email Release."

"Mama Grizzly turned out to be a Mama Ostrich"

2011-10-20T07:27:00.000-07:00

Joe McGinniss has posted "Does anyone care who Sarah Palin endorses for GOP nomination?"

Joe found a reason why some may care, in "Sarah Palin's Next Media Stunt: Who Will She Endorse?" He doesn't seem to think anyone should care, and neither do I. Here are my reasons why Sarah Palin is dead, politically:

She quit.

She won't have any delegates at the convention, so she won't have a single bargaining chip.

Her fans remember a "draft Eisenhower" campaign that succeeded, but they fail to realize that Sarah Palin is no Dwight Eisenhower.

Her fans are so stuck on her that they're likely to sit out the election, even if she endorses someone.

She is so polarizing that the eventual Republican nominee may well cringe at the thought of being endorsed by her.

That's my $0.02.

This post's title is a quote from Joe McGinniss' post.

Viewers Get Latest Episode of ‘Real Republicans of the Trail’

2011-10-19T04:35:00.000-07:00

The New York Times' Allessandra Stanley writes:

Mitt Romney said he liked Herman Cain’s “chutzpah.” He laughed, mirthlessly, when Rick Perry accused him of lying about hiring undocumented workers in his home. And he really didn’t enjoy being interrupted. Mr. Romney put a hand on Mr. Perry’s arm, space invasion of the first kind, and said, “I’m speaking, I’m speaking, I’m speaking, I’m speaking.”

False praise, forced laughter, high dudgeon: All that was missing in Tuesday’s Republican showdown was someone tossing a glass of chardonnay across the set.

People keep saying the primary debates are like a reality show, as if disputes over tax plans and immigration were akin to elimination rounds on “Dancing With the Stars” or “The Amazing Race.”

But those are not the right kind of reality shows. The ones that Tuesday’s event mirrored revolve around casting, not competition. Debates showcase personality far more than policy positions. ...

It's an amusing, well written article and includes an eleven-picture slide show as well as a wrap-up video. Click the post's title to read the entire article at The New York Times.

The post's photo was taken in Las Vegas, where the debate occurred. It is cropped from one of the article's slideshow photos.

Sarah Palin is "Tupelo Bound"

2011-10-18T05:25:00.000-07:00

"When it was announced that Governor Palin will be at the Lynchburg, VA, National EWomen conference in October, the event SOLD OUT in just 21 days--six months in advance!" So: "In addition to their national conference in Lynchburg, VA, on October 7-8, 2011, Extraordinary Women announces that special guest, Governor Sarah Palin, will join them for three additional events: Tupelo, MS; October 21-22, 2011- Greenville, SC; March 16-17, 2012-Birmingham, AL; April 27-28, 2012."

Oh my: She's Tupelo bound! I know a song about that.

I first encountered Nick Cave as a writer of Ute Lemper's "Little Water Song," so I got The Best of Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds, which has a "Tupelo" track. Its sonic landscape seemed like a train relentlessly bearing down on Tupelo; perhaps because the band's vocalization of "Tupelo-o-o" sounded like a train's whistle in this and other parts:

Distant thunder rumble. Distant thunder rumble
Rumble hungry like the Beast
The Beast it cometh, cometh down
The Beast it cometh, cometh down
Wo wo wo-o-o
Tupelo bound. Tupelo-o-o. Yeah Tupelo
The Beast it cometh, Tupelo bound

The song may actually be about a big storm headed for Tupelo. Gonna be a flood ... a flood of lies.

In the CD's liner notes, it's said of the lyrics of "Tupelo" that Nick Cave is speaking through the character of a visionary southern preacher articulating a warped Old Testament logic. The notes go on to say: 'These metaphorical figures, and others like those in "Saint Huck" and "The Carny" (the latter included here), are both blessed and blighted: beautiful losers, holy fools, cast out of the light. Like the similar cast of characters who would appear on 1996's Murder Ballads, they tend to be consumed by extreme, often literally murderous, emotions; adrift or else drowning, at odds with themselves and the world.'

Sarah "will be sharing her personal testimony of faith on Saturday afternoon at each of the conferences." She may be that visionary southern preacher, or that beast. "The Beast it cometh, Tupelo bound." Be careful, Tupelo!

Looka yonder! Looka yonder!
Looka yonder! A big black cloud come!
A big black cloud come!
O comes to Tupelo. Comes to Tupelo

Here are Nick Cave & the Bad Seeds singing "Tupelo:"

The quoted information about Sarah's appearance in Tupelo was found at "Extraordinary Women Conference Adds Governor Sarah Palin to Three Additional Events."

The lyrics for "Tupelo" were found here. They may not be 100% accurate.

The YouTube video of Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds singing "Tupelo" is the same length as the track that appears on The Best of Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds CD, but I haven't compared the lyrics. Compressed and heard through tinny PC speakers, it isn't quite the portent of doom that it is on the CD.

Palin: Already Almost Forgotten

2011-10-17T07:07:00.000-07:00

If brevity is the soul of wit, this may be an example:

... Over the past three years, it became apparent to all but a handful of cultists that her only interests were money and celebrity. She had no concept of public service, and no capacity to serve even if she had wished to do so. Soon even those last cultists will quietly abandon the argument. We talk often these days about makers and takers. Sarah Palin was the ultimate taker. She abandoned her post as governor of Alaska to cash in on lectures and TV. She squeezed her supporters for political donations and spent the money on herself. To adapt an old phrase, she seen her opportunities and she took ‘em.

In the end, she exploited, abused, or embarrassed almost everyone who had believed in her. Most embarrassing of all: she was never even a very good con artist. Everything that was false and petty and unqualified in her was visible within the first minutes of encountering her. The people she fooled were people who passionately wished to be fooled. ...

Click the post's title to read David Frum's post of the same title. Frum is a conservative.

President Obama to co-opt Occupy Wall Street movement?

2011-10-16T04:52:00.000-07:00

Despite missing an historic opportunity to institute real financial reform in 2009, The Washington Post is reporting that "Obama plans to turn anti-Wall Street anger on Mitt Romney, Republicans."

From the Post's article:

President Obama and his team have decided to turn public anger at Wall Street into a central tenet of their reelection strategy.

The move comes as the Occupy Wall Street protests gain momentum across the country and as polls show deep public distrust of the nation’s major financial institutions. ...

... Obama aides point to recent surveys that show anger at Wall Street spanning ideologies, including a new Washington Post-ABC News poll in which 68 percent of independents and 60 percent of Republicans say they have unfavorable impressions of the big financial institutions.

But the strategy of channeling anti-Wall Street anger carries risks. Many of Obama’s senior advisers have ties to the financial industry — a point that makes Occupy protesters wary of the president and his party. ...

... And many on the left have attacked Obama and his administration for its ties to Wall Street, arguing that the financial regulatory overhaul fell far short of an industry makeover that many critics believed necessary.

Much of his top economic team has roots in the financial services industry, and in recent months [Chief of Staff William] Daley and top campaign aides have devoted much of their time [to] improving the relationship with big-dollar donors on Wall Street. ...

To be fair, it should be noted that Republican candidates also have relationships with "big-dollar donors on Wall Street."

The Post's article notes that President Obama has been critical of Bank of America for its plan to collect $5/month for the use of a debit card; however, with or without its plan, that bank will remain a sick bank. The Democratic national convention will be held in Charlotte, North Carolina, headquarters of Bank of America.

BBC has a story about the Occupy Wall Street movement becoming a global movement: "'Occupy' protests at financial crisis go worldwide." The article notes, 'Witnesses blamed attacks on cars and businesses on a small number of masked militants, dubbed the "black blocs" because of the colour of their clothes.' This post's photo (taken in Rome) was obtained from that story.

Update: This morning, there is an AP story, "From Florida to Alaska, thousands join NYC protest against corporate greed," (via Washington Post (with slideshow)) about OWS developments.

Update: AlterNet has a story: "Andrew Breitbart's Pathetic Attempt to Smear Occupy Wall St."

Update: The Daily Beast has "Anarchists Hijack Rome Protests," which has some more information about the "black bloc."

Update: OccupyWallStreet has a definition of a "black bloc." OccupyWallStreet's website is here.

Joe McGinniss talks with KIRO (Seattle) and WGN (Chicago) about "The Rogue"

2011-10-14T04:30:00.000-07:00

Joe McGinniss, author of "The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin," has been talking about his book (and Sarah Palin) on radio.

He spoke with Seattle's KIRO:

More audio at MyNorthwest.com

The interview can be downloaded at '"Rogue" author Joe McGinniss chats with Ron and Don.'

Joe also spoke with Chicago's WGN. That interview can be heard at "John Williams 10/12/11: 2:00p-3:00p WIll The Real Sarah Palin Please Stand Up?"

He posted about the conference he mentioned during the KIRO interview at "Chicago Ideas Week."

Sarah Palin vacillated between "glorious highs" and "troubling lows" -- VIDEO

2011-10-12T04:44:00.000-07:00

Nicolle Wallace, author of the recently published novel "It's Classified," talked with ABC's Topline about "Tara," the Vice President in her novel. "Tara" was inspired by Sarah Palin. The first one-half of the video is about Palin, then on to Rick Perry, then back to Palin at the end, where Wallace explains why it was apparent to her that '08 was Palin's last rodeo.

video platform video management video solutions video player

"Q&A with Sarah Palin's Chaperone" is an earlier post about Nicolle Wallace's book and contains a link to an earlier post with links to excerpts of the book and video of Wallace's statement about the inspiration for "Tara" on Rachel Maddow's show.

The post's video was found at "Nicolle Wallace: Palin ‘Incredibly Withdrawn’ as VP Candidate; Sparked Talk of Removal from Ticket."

Sarah wouldn't talk to "Larry the Cable Guy" without her makeup

2011-10-10T14:08:00.000-07:00

Larry the Cable Guy crashed Sarah's house and talked to Todd. Sarah came out, hiding her face, to tell him she'd leave a note on his van. Larry says he saw the house where "that guy" moved in to spy on the Palins. Larry then went to see Sarah's parents where he was shown maps that prove that Russia can be seen from Alaska. Oh my!

A Classy Lady's Busy Schedule

2011-10-09T03:46:00.000-07:00

On Thursday, First Lady Michelle Obama hosted fifty students for the Let's Move soccer clinic, which was held on the South Lawn of the White House:

On Wednesday, she worked in the White House kitchen garden, with students from Bancroft and Tubman elementary schools:

You can follow some of the First Lady's activites at Mrs. O, which has been "following the fashion and style of First Lady Michelle Obama since 2008." Mrs. O is a style/fashion blog and its photos are taken at public activities the First Lady attends; it can be found on the blog's sidebar, filed under "Interesting Stuff."

Photo credits appear in the photos's links and at Mrs. O.

Can Sarah Palin's "Word Salad" be Parsed?

2011-10-07T11:11:00.000-07:00

Mark Axelrod, a Professor of Comparative Literature, posted "Parsing Palin; or, the Quintessential Act of Quitting" at The Huffington Post. He considers these snippets from Sarah Palin's quit-the-tease statement of Wednesday:

After much prayer and serious consideration, I have decided that I will not be seeking the 2012 GOP nomination for President of the United States.
As always, my family comes first and obviously Todd and I put great consideration into family life before making this decision. When we serve, we devote ourselves to God, family and country.
My decision maintains this order. My decision is based upon a review of what common sense Conservatives and Independents have accomplished, especially over the last year. I believe that at this time I can be more effective in a decisive role to help elect other true public servants to office -- from the nation's governors to Congressional seats and the Presidency.
We need to continue to actively and aggressively help those who will stop the 'fundamental transformation' of our nation and instead seek the restoration of our greatness, our goodness and our constitutional republic based on the rule of law.

Read Axelrod's post to find out what he has to say about them.

If you'd like to undermine Axelrod's credibility, consider his last two sentences, "I knew she wouldn't run when I discovered that she had quit a bevy of colleges before she ever earned her degree. That's a fundamental character flaw and those things can never be transformed." Some might say that she transferred rather than "quit." In "The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin," Joe McGinniss states as fact that she completed a degree at University of Idaho.

On the other hand, if you're inclined to agree with Axelrod's assessment of those snippets, you're probably aware of what a blunder it might be to claim that Sarah Palin didn't write the statement, as in "It was ghostwritten."

By the way, I think "word salad" can be parsed. I read a Wall Street Journal story and knew before anyone else that Sarah Palin had finished "seriously deliberating" whether to throw her wig into the ring. She gave it away with her verb tense in "This is a serious decision, and I’ve engaged in serious deliberations." That article is "Sarah Palin's dilemma." She had already made her decision when she made that statement.

Update: Sarah Palin's quit-the-tease statement can be found on Facebook, here.

Update: The Washington Post has "For Sarah Palin: God, family, then country?"

Sarah Palin is Out! Break out the champagne! What's next?

2011-10-05T17:31:00.000-07:00

Radio host Mark Levin has read a statement from Sarah Palin. In her statement, Palin stopped stringing everyone along and finally said what many of us have known for a long time: She won't run.

If you've got champagne, now might be a good time to open it. I got a can of Asahi "Dry" from my neighbor, an arch-conservative; he doesn't know what an evil "socialist" I am. If only he knew. The can contains 33.8 fluid ounces, about three times as much as an ordinary beer! I'm sipping it slowly, because I don't weigh a lot and should finish this post before the room starts spinning. Woohoo!

Sarah could have called major media outlets. There might have been a global, news-making press conference. But she didn't want to answer their questions. Instead, she had a conservative radio host read her statement, then she answered questions that he carefully framed for her, so that she could take one last parting shot at her critics. She phoned it in.

I'd like to think my post of this morning, "Uh-oh. Sarah doesn't have a campaign committee," finally smoked her out, but last Saturday's "Requiem for a Wannabe Queen" may have played a part.

Talking with Mark Levin, Sarah Palin rambled on-and-on about President Obama, and she thinks she'll have a role to play doing this: Sniping (for any reason, real or imagined).

If she does that, there will continue to be things to post about Sarah Palin. But there are more interesting things to write about, especially about politics and especially about politics and its intersection with economics. Many have been taken for a ride and have consistently voted against their best interests. I may start another blog for that or write about that here; those stories aren't difficult to associate with Sarah Palin, but there's something declasse about writing -- even reading -- about Sarah Palin. We'll see. Tonight, I feel like I got my life back.

The bare, unadorned text of Sarah Palin's announcement can be read at Mudflats' "Sarah Palin Will Not Seek the Presidency in 2012 – Country Comes Third."

Several media outlets have stories: Anchorage's Daily News has "Palin announces she won't seek GOP presidential nomination." ABC News has "Sarah Palin Will Not Run for President." The New York Times has "Palin Says She’s Not Running." USA Today has "Sarah Palin won't run for president." Last but not least, Fox News has a story pimping -- what else? -- Sarah Palin's appearance, tonight, on Greta Van Susteren's show.

You can hear Mark Levin reading Sarah Palin's statement at "BREAKING NEWS: SARAH PALIN'S 2012 ANNOUNCEMENT."

¡SALUD!

Hasta la vista, Sarah.

Update: Sarah finally got around to posting her statement on Facebook, here.

Update: AP has a story, "Palin statement on decision not to run," which simply quotes Sarah Palin's statement.

Update: It's the morning after. I drank about one-half the Asahi and put the rest in the fridge for later. Joe McGinniss wrote "Arrivederci, Sarah!" for The Daily Beast.

Update: ABC News has "Sarah Palin’s Die Hard Supporters ‘Stunned,’ ‘Disappointed."

Update: Fox News has "Palin Opts Against 2012 Presidential Run," which has video of Sarah Palin's appearance on Greta Van Susteren's show, last night.

Update: Entertainment Weekly's PopWatch has "Sarah Palin will not run. How will comedy survive?"

Q&A with Sarah Palin's Chaperone

2011-10-05T15:02:00.000-07:00

Nicolle Wallace, former communications director in the Bush White House and Sarah Palin's chaperone during the 2008 campaign, has written a new book, "It's Classified." One of the book's characters is "Tara," the Vice President of the U.S.A. Nicolle Wallace has said that "Tara" is "cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs," and she has said that the character was inspired by none other than Sarah Palin.

TIME Magazine has published an interview with Nicolle Wallace. The magazine asked questions (and made one statement) in order to get Wallace to talk about her book:

This novel reads like a lighthearted novel for people interested in politics, but it's also a pretty big indictment of how the political process works. Where were you going for with this book?

In the book, the vice presidential character, Tara Meyers, is completely unfit for her job.

When you were working on the McCain campaign, what about Sarah Palin alarmed you so much?

You have a line in the book where the vice president is talking about why the American people love her. And she says, "The person they admire isn't me, it's the idea that I'm them." Why do we need to have our politicians to be just like us? Do we really need to drink a beer with the President?

There are so many women in these high-powered positions in this book, but they're talking about men and clothes and food. The female President was eating a bowl of fat-free yogurt. Why were they eating all the time?

Nicolle Wallace's responses can be read at "Q&A with Palin Advisor-Turned-Novelist Nicolle Wallace."

Nicolle Wallace also appeared on Rachel Maddow's show recently, where she said that Sarah Palin inspired the "Tara" character and where she made the "cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs" remark. You can see a video with Wallace's remarks on Maddow's show at "Sarah Palin inspired Nicolle Wallace's character "Tara," a "Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs" Vice President." That post includes links to places where excerpts of "It's Classified" can be read.

Uh-oh. Sarah doesn't have a campaign committee.

2011-10-05T07:27:00.000-07:00

Politico's Maggie Haberman and Ken Vogel write:

... [C]alls were made on behalf of a mystery candidate to various early states to determine presidential filing deadlines.

The calls were made by representatives of the law firm Baker Hostetler - a firm that employs lawyer Mark Braden, who represents Sarah PAC, her political action committee.

As Ken notes, while he nor representatives of Palin’s campaign would comment on the calls, Palin is the only GOP politician eying the presidential race who is represented by the firm. ...

The drop dead date -- Sarah's self-imposed drop dead date for deciding was September 30 -- for a New Hampshire filing is October 28. But here's the fly in the ointment -- the deal breaker -- a candidate has to pay a filing fee and that fee must come "from a federally registered presidential campaign committee."

Sarah doesn't have such a committee. She's never even bothered to form an exploratory committee. "Unconventional" candidates do need to do conventional things.

It may be possible for Sarah to get her ducks in a row by the 28th, but it might be best for her to file before then. Remember, Sarah's trademark application was initially rejected because it hadn't been signed. A presidential primary filing is trickier than a trademark application.

Bonus: Politico's Alexander Burns writes, "Sarah Palin hasn’t closed the door yet on a presidential bid. But few Republicans appear to be waiting for her answer. ..." in "GOP looks past Sarah Palin for 2012."

Escaping a Political Cult

2011-10-04T08:19:00.000-07:00

After making a case for the idea that Republicans are actively creating public distrust of government, Mike Lofgren, a retired 30-year congressional staff member continued to write:

... This tactic of inducing public distrust of government is not only cynical, it is schizophrenic. For people who profess to revere the Constitution, it is strange that they so caustically denigrate the very federal government that is the material expression of the principles embodied in that document. This is not to say that there is not some theoretical limit to the size or intrusiveness of government; I would be the first to say there are such limits, both fiscal and Constitutional. But most Republican officeholders seem strangely uninterested in the effective repeal of Fourth Amendment protections by the Patriot Act, the weakening of habeas corpus and self-incrimination protections in the public hysteria following 9/11 or the unpalatable fact that the United States has the largest incarcerated population of any country on earth. If anything, they would probably opt for more incarcerated persons, as imprisonment is a profit center for the prison privatization industry, which is itself a growth center for political contributions to these same politicians. Instead, they prefer to rail against those government programs that actually help people. And when a program is too popular to attack directly, like Medicare or Social Security, they prefer to undermine it by feigning an agonized concern about the deficit. ...

... Republicans are among the most shrill in self-righteously lecturing other countries about the wonders of democracy; exporting democracy (albeit at the barrel of a gun) to the Middle East was a signature policy of the Bush administration. But domestically, they don't want those people voting.

You can probably guess who those people are. Above all, anyone not likely to vote Republican. As Sarah Palin would imply, the people who are not Real Americans. Racial minorities. Immigrants. Muslims. Gays. Intellectuals. Basically, anyone who doesn't look, think, or talk like the GOP base. This must account, at least to some degree, for their extraordinarily vitriolic hatred of President Obama. I have joked in the past that the main administration policy that Republicans object to is Obama's policy of being black. Among the GOP base, there is constant harping about somebody else, some "other," who is deliberately, assiduously and with malice aforethought subverting the Good, the True and the Beautiful: Subversives. Commies. Socialists. Ragheads. Secular humanists. Blacks. Fags. Feminazis. The list may change with the political needs of the moment, but they always seem to need a scapegoat to hate and fear.

It is not clear to me how many GOP officeholders believe this reactionary and paranoid claptrap. I would bet that most do not. But they cynically feed the worst instincts of their fearful and angry low-information political base with a nod and a wink. ...

Mike Lofgren's article should be read by everyone. What's wrong with the Republican party has probably never been so thoroughly described, so succinctly, anywhere else. The article was so good that it was difficult to decide what to excerpt. The article appeared at Truthout.org and was classified as News Analysisis. The article is "Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult." Although Lofgren mainly concerns himself with the problems of the Republican Party, the Democratic Party doesn't escape his scorn.

Bloomberg's "The Secret Sins of Koch Industries" a dud? -- UPDATED

2011-10-03T14:55:00.000-07:00

Recently, journalism's badboy, Justin Elliott, who believes that Sarah Palin did not fake a pregnancy, touted a November Bloomberg Markets story that, he claimed, had "spooked" the Koch brothers. Elliott based his claim on the existence of what he called "prebuttals," presumably coined from "pre-publication rebuttals." Bloomberg Markets' article has been published on the internet, too, where it is titled "Koch Brothers Flout Law With Secret Iran Sales."

Interestingly, the article is written in such a way that it doesn't allege that Koch Industries broke the law in its dealings with Iran; it may insinuate that they broke the law, and with an uncareful reading of the article some may infer that the company broke the law. Bloomberg Markets provided the article to Koch Industries prior to publication in order to obtain their comments. Regarding sales to Iran, Koch's Director of Corporate Communications, Melissa Cohlmia, e-mailed this to the article's publisher:

Regarding sales to Iran, she wrote, “During the relevant time frame covered in your article, U.S. law allowed foreign subsidiaries of U.S. multinational companies to engage in trade involving countries subject to U.S. trade sanctions, including Iran, under certain conditions.”

The article claims that Koch Industries "sidestepped" a trade ban with Iran; however, the evidence the article cites for that claim could just as easily be construed to be an effort to comply with the law, and there is nothing sinister about that.

Indeed, In April of 2008, Koch Industries hired a compliance and ethics manager for Europe and Asia, Ludmila Egorova-Farines, who immediately traveled to Koch's corporate headquarters in Wichita to attend an internal compliance conference. Egorova-Farines then traveled to France, in May, where she discovered that a subsidiary in Arles had paid bribes to obtain contracts. When she notified headquarters of what she had found, Koch sent investigators to look into her allegations. By September of the same year, those investigators had found evidence of violations of criminal law (bribes to obtain contracts) in six countries, beginning in 2002.

Egorova-Farines was removed from the investigation in August, 2008, and she was terminated for incompetence in June of 2009. She sued Koch-Glitsch, a Koch Industries subsidiary, for wrongful termination, but Bloomberg Markets' article does not state whether her suit was successful; however, it does state that a letter from "Koch Industries," written on December 8, 2008, was entered into evidence at a French trial, and states that the letter became public in a French civil court ruling in September of 2010. Perhaps the letter was entered into evidence during Egorova-Farines wrongful termination suit. Perhaps the French court's ruling was that Egorova-Farines was not improperly terminated.

The "smoking gun," mentioned by Sara Sun Beale, was found, apparently, in the letter made public by the French court. Apparently, but we're not sure, the letter is about paying bribes to obtain contracts. Did Koch Industries pay a bribe to obtain an Iranian contract? All we know at this point is that the investigators found evidence of bribery to obtain contracts in "six countries." If the company did pay a bribe to obtain business in Iran, was the business that it obtained forbidden by law? There are two separate issues there.

One of the greatest realizations of human thought has been this: If event A preceeds event B, it doesn't necessarily follow that event A caused event B. It wouldn't be wise to conclude that Egorova-Farines was fired because she found evidence of bribery to obtain contracts. Neither should we conclude that she received any training about spotting bribery when she attended the internal compliance conference before she went to France and discovered the bribery.

Ranting about the activites of one company doesn't address the real problem. Let's put things into some perspective: if the estimate of Koch Industries' revenue of $100 Billion per year is correct, and if the estimate of $100 Million Koch Brothers' gifts to right-wing causes is correct, then they have only spent one-thousandth of the company's one-year revenues on those causes, if their $100 Million donation occurred in just one year. Those donations represent 1 dollar for every 1000 dollars in revenue -- just one tenth of one per-cent, if the donations occurred in one year only. To put it further into perspective, the revenues of Koch Industries are but a fraction of the revenues of all corporations, many of which lobby for regulatory reform.

The real problem is that many businesses are opposed to regulation, and some would like to tear down existing regulatory law. A letter to your members of congress ranting about Koch Industries won't get far. Congress isn't interested in making laws against any corporation; Congress is, however, keenly interested in business regulation and over the years has enacted regulatory law and has delegated some of its authority to various agencies which have made administrative law. An argument based solely on the activity of one company is a poor argument. Remember that the Koch Brothers' gifts are derived from Koch Industries revenues which are but a small part of all corporate revenues. If your member of congress were to respond to an argument based solely on the activites of Koch Industries, he or she might reasonably ask you to provide additional examples, examples of how other companies have behaved. Unfortunately, no one can argue from "illegal activity" without knowing that a law has been broken. So, in order to take this problem up with members of congress, a better approach is to advocate for retaining existing regulatory law or to argue for strengthening regulatory law. Arguments for retaining, even strengthening, existing regulatory law aren't difficult to come by, and it's easy to send a letter to your representatives, but a letter should be written by you. Congress can be old-fashioned, but its members are quite capable of screening their incoming correspondence for astroturf, mass e-mail and fax campaigns ... whatever you'd like to call it.

If it's any consolation, if the Koch Brothers have donated to the Tea Party, then they have made a poor investment. The Tea Party fell into disrepute over its don't-care-if-we-default attitude during the debt ceiling negotiations. So much so that Sarah Palin went to Indianola, Iowa to deliver what she billed a "full throated defense of the tea party." That was a dud, too.

Whether an action over the evidence, if any, contained within the letter made public by the French court ever occurs will be interesting to learn. If it happens, we shouldn't assume that it was precipitated by Bloomberg Markets' article. Remember about event A and event B? In fact, Department of Justice should be given credit for knowing about a lot of things before anyone else does. The article makes clear that a department spokeswoman would not confirm or deny the existence of any investigation.

Did I miss anything? Do I need to go read the "prebuttals?" I don't think so. I can think for myself.

Justin Elliott's tout is "Koch brothers spooked by forthcoming story."

Bloomberg Markets' story is "Koch Brothers Flout Law With Secret Iran Sales."

A New Yorker story is "Covert Operations," which is Jane Mayer's article about the Koch brothers. The $100 Billion and $100 Million figures, used above, were obtained from that article.

Update: Koch Industries has issued a press release, "Koch General Counsel Mark Holden Responds to Bloomberg Markets Magazine," which includes a link to an Engish translation of the French court's decision, mentioned above, as well as affidavits filed by Koch Industries. I haven't had time to read them, but they may be interesting. Now, don't have a knee-jerk response and assume that I am defending Koch Industries anywhere in this post. I am not. My post is simply legitimate criticism of the article posted by Bloomberg Markets, and it suggests how the larger problem of corporations' desire for regulatory reform can be addressed.

Update: Reading from the decision of the French court, this was the courts decision on grounds for termination:

The Tribunal note that several times the employer strived to find the compatibility between its needs and Mrs. EGOROVA-FARINES ’ skills.

Mrs. EGOROVA-FARINES interpreted this search for compatibility as a challenge of both her personally and her skill. This likely led to some misunderstanding which became more acute month after month. (And probably to a deterioration of her health).

Given the impossibility to communicate which arose between the employee and itself, the employer was forced to draw conclusions: i.e. terminate Mrs. EGOROVA-FARINES .

The Tribunal dismiss of all Mrs. EGOROVA-FARINES ’s claims.

From the court's decision, too:

Egorova-Farines alleged in her wrongful termination suit that she had been terminated "for having reported (in May 2008) alleged facts of corruption at the Company." There is not an admission of criminal activity by Koch there.

The article states that Koch's termination letter to Egorova-Farines contains a "smoking gun." It quotes, “Those activities constitute violations of criminal law,” without any context, presumably from Koch's termination letter of December 2008 to Egorova-Farines. Egorova-Farines probably has the letter; she was a source for the article. How did Sara Sun Beale, who states, "The payments to win contracts documented by Koch investigators may violate U.S. law," obtain the letter? Does the letter contain a "smoking gun?" Something that would damage Egorova-Farines credibility? The article's omission of the disposition of Egorova-Farines suit and failure to quote more from the termination letter is troubling, because it doesn't permit the reader to evaluate important parts of the story's background, and it doesn't permit the reader to evaluate the credibility of one of the story's primary sources -- "Egorova-Farines says," "she says," ... .

The article's statement:

Egorova-Farines wasn’t rewarded for bringing the illicit payments to the company’s attention.

is disingenous in light of the French court's verdict. I suppose that if that was the extent of her relationship with her employer she might have been rewarded; however, the "reward" for doing one's job is often only that one gets to come back tomorrow.

In the first affidavit,

"On or about May 30, 2008 when the allegations of possible bribery ... ." There is not an admission of criminal activity by Koch there.

Is the article's statement "By September of that year, the researchers had found evidence of improper payments to secure contracts in six countries dating back to 2002, authorized by the business director of the company’s Koch-Glitsch affiliate in France" accurate?

Update: Pro Publica -- "Journalism in the public interest" -- has posted "What Are the Latest Revelations About Koch Industries?"

What? The "Republican Establishment" is poised to do Sarah Palin in?

2011-10-02T07:27:00.000-07:00

There is a headline in the news, "Opinion: If Palin Enters the 2012 Contest, Christie Will Too." It was a little mind boggling, like a lot of headlines, so I read the article. It was written by Juan Williams, one of Sarah Palin's Fox News colleagues. The article begins:

What will it take to get Chris Christie to say yes and run for the GOP nomination?

Come on down -- Sarah Palin.

Aside from echoing Herman Cain's "come on down" idiom, it isn't until the article's last paragraph that Williams explains why (he thinks) Christie would get in, if Palin gets in:

All the talk about Palin has the Republican political establishment seeing red. They fear losing control of the nominating process and the whole party spiraling down, sinking into a sea of far-right polarization and the cult of personality around Palin if “Sarah Barracuda” – her nickname as star high school basketball player -- swims into their waters and begins eating up Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and the other current Republican candidates.

It isn't difficult to imagine Sarah Palin, who considers the Republican primary process to be a quasi-reality show, standing on a debate stage and asking, whenever one of the other candidates disagreed with her, "When did you stop beating your spouse?" So, yes, there may be some concern in the "Republican establishment" that she would turn the process into a circus.

But what is this "Republican establishment?" Who are its members? I can only think of Republican governors, members of congress, former high office holders, and a few pundits, like Karl Rove and, perhaps, Juan Williams. Collectively, they are incapable of preventing Sarah Palin from running. How could they force Chris Christie to run? Would Christie run, if Palin runs? He has said that he won't run.

Sarah Palin will ignore these establishment guys and run, if she wants to run. She might run to spite them, now that an enemy has been identified for her. I know: poles are for strippers, so she might also easily ignore polls that indicate that an overwhelming number of republican voters -- not establishment guys -- are concerned about their candidate's electability and are looking to nominate someone, anyone but Sarah Palin.

Sarah Palin has done Sarah Palin in, so no one should blame her problems on the republican establishment. Of course, Sarah Palin may do just that. Her fans will be angry, if she announces that she won't run. But by blaming the establishment she could deflect their anger away from her and onto the establishment. Who knows? They might sit out the election!

Juan Williams wrote "Opinion: If Palin Enters the 2012 Contest, Christie Will Too."

Herman Cain says, "Come on down," in CBS News' "Herman Cain: My supporters "do not defect."

Sarah Palin called the republican primary process a quasi-reality show during an appearance on Fox Business News, an appearance in which she complained that her colleague, Juan Williams, had said something "nasty" about her. The Wall Street Journal's "Palin: Wait a While Longer" quotes Sarah Palin's quasi-reality show remark, which was made when she attempted to walkback her statement that Herman Cain is "flavor of the week." If I remember correctly, Sarah complains about Juan's "nasty" remark in Lawrence O'Donnell's "Sarah Palin is on thin ice" video, which can be viewed at "Requiem for a Wannabe Queen."

P.S. I'm off for the rest of today and tomorrow, unless Sarah makes an announcement.

Joe McGinniss talked about Sarah Palin and his book, "The Rogue," on "Canada AM"

2011-10-02T02:22:00.000-07:00

Joe McGinniss was interviewed on CTV's "Canada AM." CTV Edmonton described what McGinniss said about Sarah Palin and his book during the interview. Here are the high points of CTV Edmonton's article:

"She sounds stupid and she is stupid, so that part is real," McGinnis told CTVNews.ca in an interview, when asked whether there's any truth to the old-fashioned, American values image that has been crafted for Palin.

"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."

McGinnis said Palin, the former governor of Alaska and former mayor of Wasilla, still draws a lot of water in her home state, and many sources would only speak anonymously for fear of retribution.

"A lot of people have said if you quote me by name at the very least I'm going to lose my job and it could get worse, look at the things she did to you, the things she said about you, and all you did was move in next door."

While he admits this isn't ideal, he said he only used information he could corroborate with several sources and often had to weed through rumours and innuendo that simply didn't turn out to be true.

As much as 80 per cent of the material he collected wasn't used because he was unable to meet that standard of corroboration, McGinnis said.

Palin has been ambiguous about whether she plans to throw her name in the hat for the Republican presidential nomination.

McGinnis, however, said he believes Palin has decided against it.

CTV Edmonton's article is "Palin 'vengeful,' says author who moved in next door."

The complete "Canada AM" interview may be available in two parts, here and here; however, lately, the video hasn't been viewable -- a we-are-experiencing-technical-difficulties error occurs.

Hey! "Herb" Cain forgives Sarah Palin and explains that he isn't "iced milk," but "Black Walnut," a flavor with substance.

2011-10-01T12:22:00.000-07:00

Herman -- "Herb" as Sarah Palin referred him several times recently on Greta Van Susteren's show -- Cain appears to be a gentleman and something of a wit. He has forgiven Sarah Palin for calling him "flavor of the week" and said that only his enemies call him "Herb."

From CNN:

Sarah Palin called Herman Cain the “flavor of the week” when he won a closely-watched straw poll in Florida, but the former Godfather's Pizza executive said Friday his particular flavor has substance.
“I happen to believe there’s iced milk, and then there’s Haagan-Daas Black Walnut,” Cain said on "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno". “Substance, that’s the difference. I got the substance. I’m the Black Walnut. It lasts longer than a week.”

It was left to Jay Leno's viewers to decide who, if anyone, is "iced milk," and which of the Republican candidates (any of 'em? all of 'em?) don't have any substance. What might Sarah say? She might say, '"Herb" is nuts.' That follows from "Black Walnut," doesn't it? But then Cain's statement may confirm her belief that the Republican primaries are a "quasi-reality show" and that the 24/7 news cycle is a "fast movie." (See the previous post for the context of those statements made by Sarah Palin.) Whatever! ... "Herb" has proven that a news cycle can last longer than 24 hours.

'Cain also forgave the former Alaska governor for mistakenly calling him Herb Cain: I’m going to forgive her, doesn’t know that only my enemies call me Herb,” Cain said. “I’m going to forgive her this time."'

See CNN's "TRENDING: Cain: My flavor is Black Walnut."

I know. I know: Some say that the mainstream media isn't doing its job, but, on the other hand, some might consider whether the mainstream media is assuming that its audience is reasonably intelligent and doesn't want to be told what to think.

News can be made through comedy, and comedy can be subtler than the newspapers. Not to digress too far, but The Washington Post has been called "Pravda on the Potomac," a Cold War reference. Perhaps, some should learn to read between the lines. Sigh. Someday, I may post "How to read a newspaper."

Requiem for a Wannabe Queen (Sarah Palin)

2011-10-01T04:49:00.000-07:00

Republican primary states are in a rush to decide which of them will vote first. For a long time, it's been the Iowa caucuses first, then the New Hampshire primary. Now, Florida is moving its primary to January 31st, and, according to the Washington Post, "Officials in four states — Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina — are now huddling to assemble their new dates, which will most likely be between early and late January 2012. But those dates could also be held in 2011, at least according to one state." New Hampshire's Secretary of State "announced that candidates must file for the state’s primary starting in a little over two weeks, between Oct. 17 and 28."

The rush to hold the first vote throws a wrench into Sarah Palin's "serious deliberations" which, by the way, aren't serious at all, and to top it off, Sarah Palin is skating on thin ice at Fox News. Lawrence O'Donnell delivers that news:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire obtained a preview of Sarah Palin's remarks on one of the Fox shows O'Donnell talks about. In their story, they note that "Ms. Palin is a paid contributor for Fox, which is owned by News Corp., as is The Wall Street Journal," so they may well be writing of what they've been told by a highly placed source in News Corp when they write: "Ms. Palin, who has taken no serious steps toward a run, ... ." The article states that Sarah Palin DID call Herman Cain "flavor of the week," and it goes on to quote what she would later be heard saying on Fox Business Network in an attempt to walkback that remark. She dug a deeper hole for herself by calling the Republican primary process a "quasi-reality show" and by quipping that the 24/7 news cycle is a "fast movie." A quasi-candidate and a former reality show participant would know, right?

Sarah Palin hasn't even formed an exploratory committee. The Atlantic's Chris Good wrote an informative article about what serious presidential candidates do. His article is "What's an Exploratory Committee?"

The Washington Post's story about the rush to move-up the primaries is "As Florida moves to January, New Hampshire threatens December primary."

The Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire story is "Palin: Wait a While Longer."

Some say that it's hopeless to attempt to parse "word salad," but I'm not so sure. Considering her grammar, Sarah Palin has told us that she is NOT seriously deliberating about a run.

Sarah Palin has decided, but she does not want to tell us what she's decided.

2011-09-30T03:33:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, The Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire got a preview of Sarah Palin's appearance, last night, on Fox Business Network. Their story begins:

In case you were wondering, Sarah Palin has no plans to announce tomorrow whether she’ll run for president.

“This is a serious decision, and I’ve engaged in serious deliberations. So within the next 24 hours don’t look for me to make a decision,” she said, according to excerpts of an interview on Fox Business Network set to air tonight.

Ms. Palin, who has taken no serious steps toward a run, had said over the summer that she would have to announce her intentions by the end of September – that would [be] tomorrow — in order to meet a long list of logistical requirements for getting on state ballots. But lately, she has suggested she has until later in the fall. Florida for instance, does not require state parties to submit the names of presidential candidates until Oct. 31.

Let's stop right there. Sarah Palin said, "I've engaged in serious deliberations." Let's expand the contraction I've: "I have engaged in serious deliberations." Should we doubt grammar? Isn't verb tense still meaningful? Sarah's "serious deliberations" were complete when she made that statement. She's decided! She didn't say, "I am engaging in serious deliberations," or "I am engaged in serious deliberations," both of which would indicate an action continuing in the present. No! She said "I've engaged in serious deliberations," which is to say, "I have engaged in serious deliberations ," which is to say "I am not presently engaged in serious deliberations."

The takeaway is: Sarah Palin has decided or Sarah Palin is not deliberating seriously at the present time. Is there any other choice? Possibly: Sarah Palin does NOT know what she is talking about.

See Palingates' "Sarah Palin's dilemma" for what may be an explanation of why Sarah Palin is scared to say what she's decided.

Well! Recently, I've outdone myself: Four posts, yesterday; three the day before. So, I may take the rest of the day off, and Saturday and Sunday, too. I'll be watching the news, and be back if Sarah Palin does or says anything newsworthy. She'll try ... she's has to have that attention. It's all part of the tease.

BREAKING!!! Joe McGinniss' book to debut at #10 on NY Times bestseller list!

2011-09-29T15:18:00.000-07:00

I was in a Target store, this morning, and saw Joe McGinniss' book “The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin” on the bestseller, nonfiction shelves. I thought about driving back with a camera, but thought, "Nah, why burn a gallon of gas?"

No matter! Salon's Dave Weigel has posted "Palin Book Round-Up: McGinniss Sells, Johnston Flops," in which he writes, "Now that the books have been out for a week, we have a better idea of how they're selling. According to the New York Times's books reporter Julie Bosman, The Rogue will debut at #10 on the paper's nonfiction list, making it McGinniss's first bestseller in more than a decade. According to Nielsen BookScan, McGinniss moved 6,000 copies in the first week."

Weigel didn't provide a link, so I checked Julie Bosman's articles at the NY Times and found nothing. Aha! It's something she tweeted:

Don't believe it? -- screencaps can be faked -- see what she tweeted.

Recent reviews of Nick Broomfield's film "Sarah Palin: You Betcha!" are generally positive

2011-09-29T14:22:00.000-07:00

Several positive reviews of Nick Broomfield's film, "Sarah Palin: You, Betcha!" have recently appeared. Here is an excerpt -- in italics -- of one from msnbc, chosen mainly because it's a good backgrounder and somewhat of a linkfest:

The Frommer's travel guidebook on Alaska describes the city of Wasilla as “the worst kind of suburban sprawl of highway-fronting shopping malls and gravel lots.” With a population of about 8,000, it's also filled with an abundance of churches and, oddly enough, has the distinction of being the state meth capital despite its citywide ban on strip clubs. But in Nick Broomfield's new documentary, Sarah Palin: You Betcha!, the city more closely resembles Twin Peaks, with its most popular resident, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, serving the role of the malefic killer BOB, having brainwashed her former constituents into believing she's someone worthy of their undying admiration.

Things began innocently enough. Broomfield and his co-director, Joan Churchill, moved to a house in Wasilla and were invited into the homes of many of Palin's acquaintances and family members—including that of her parents, Chuck and Sally Heath.

“We tried incredibly hard to ingratiate ourselves to Sarah Palin and her family,” said Broomfield in an interview. “I didn't go out there in any way whatsoever to do a hit piece on her. We were like the best-behaved Boy Scouts there could be.”

The title of the film comes from a promise the Tea Party figurehead and former vice presidential candidate made to Broomfield at a book signing when he requested an interview, but it soon became readily apparent that Palin was just leading the filmmakers on. ...

... Broomfield is known for his in-your-face filmmaking style, which has influenced Michael Moore and Morgan Spurlock, among others. He's often depicted ambushing subjects in his films clutching a sound boom with a tape recorder dangling from his neck. The cheeky Brit's most famous documentaries include Kurt & Courtney, in which he suggested that Courtney Love drove Nirvana frontman Kurt Cobain to suicide, and Biggie & Tupac, which supported the popular theory that the LAPD was in on the rappers' murders.

“I'm very drawn to these subjects that have a bigger reflection of the world and the society we live in,” said Broomfield. “In this particular one, it's this evangelical politician who is very much reflective of a Michele Bachmann or a Rick Perry, and who is unfortunately very representative of where the Republican Party is going, and the diminishing separation of church and state, which I think is one of the most dangerous things that could happen in this country.” ...

“[Sarah Palin's] irrational way of dealing with people, and the way she gets rid of people and makes them enemies, should have people thinking twice,” said Broomfield. ...

The review ends with quotes of several of Nick Broomfield's remarks: '“The Rick Perrys and the Sarah Palins have created this romantic fiction of a piece of American history that never existed that people have bought into,” said a fired-up Broomfield. “Until the liberals come up with their own equivalent, and come up with their own heroes, and actually have the balls to stand up and argue their beliefs in a consistent way in terms of a larger political framework, the Perrys, Bachmanns, and Palins are going to be very powerful, and I think the country will go into a very dark period—both within the country, in terms of the dwindling middle class, and the world stage.”'

Although I'll go to see Nick Broomfield's film, I disagree with his assessment of voters, because the Perrys, Bachmanns, and Palins have a problem: electability. The "romantic fiction" these people have created isn't a mainstream, majority view. Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann are being pilloried, everyday. Rick Perry is going to have to answer for some of the things he wrote in his book "Fed Up!" which was written when he thought he wouldn't run, and about which he told ABC News, "If there is a better signal of my plans for the future of not running for the presidency of the United States, it's this book," Perry said last November. "Anyone running for the presidency is not going to go take on these issues with the power that I do." In the end, it's a matter of confidence in the country's voters. People who don't have any confidence in the voters will feel afraid. Let's hope that they're not too scared or too lazy to vote.

Yet another review is Cinespect's "Q&A with Award-Winning Documentarian Nick Broomfield," which is an in-depth interview that clearly separates the interviewer's questions and Nick Broomfield's responses. Recommended!

And, yet another review is The New York Observer's "Northern Exposure? You Betcha!"

The msnbc review, excerpted above, is "The Documentary Palin Will Hate."

I think the film will recoup its production costs, at least, then go on to be an important film, if Sarah Palin dares to throw her wig in the ring.

The film's poster was found here, at IMDb.

Sarah Palin's gone hunting and is wearing the Cookie Monster's pelt. What will we tell the children?

2011-09-29T09:19:00.000-07:00

On his Daily Show, Jon Stewart played a role that Greta Van Susteren failed to play when she had Sarah Palin on her show the other night. According to The Atlantic Wire's Eric Hayden, Stewart's point -- he's quoting Stewart -- is:

"So, here's the thing. You can have a colorful bus and drive to early primary states or you can go around telling people what you would do if you were president. But when you put those two together, there's really only two possibilities: you are either running for the president of the United States, or you are a crazy person."

The video is hilarious and trenchant. Some things may be best expressed through comedy. Jon Stewart's "interview" of Sarah Palin is intercut with sarah-palin-answerthons from Greta Van Susteren's show and has dubbed-in a laugh-track:

Ha! Where does Sarah Palin get off talking about a "nail in the coffin" of anyone else's candidacy?

Before reading The Atlantic's post, "Jon Stewart: Either Sarah Palin Is a Candidate or She's 'Crazy'," bear in mind, in this age of short attention spans, that sometimes the punchline needs a buildup. Timing is everything with comedy.

A video and transcript of Sarah Palin's appearance on Greta Van Susteren's show can be found at Fox News' "'Maverick' Palin vs. 'Quasi Reality' Show."

Bonus: Salon has "The Christie/Palin tease."

Sarah Palin inspired Nicolle Wallace's character "Tara," a "Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs" Vice President -- VIDEO

2011-09-29T05:46:00.000-07:00

Nicolle Wallace, former Communications Director for President Bush and -- Is there any way to put this delicately? -- Sarah Palin's chaperone during the 2008 campaign, has written "It's Classified," a novel whose characters include "Charlotte," as President, and "Tara," as Vice President.

The book's prologue can be read here, at Simon & Schuster's website. The Daily Beast has an excerpt from Chapter Twenty-four, where "Tara" -- is she Sarah? -- has difficulty with an interview. Or, look inside the book, at Amazon. And, last but not least, Nicolle Wallace (and Steve Schmidt) were interviewed by Rachel Maddow. On Maddow's show, Wallace says that "Tara" was inspired by Sarah Palin. Nicolle Wallace begins talking about 2:18:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Gryphen has "Just in case there are NOT enough nails in Sarah Palin's political coffin, let me present the devastating Rachel Maddow interview with ex-McCain staffers Steve Schmidt and Nicolle Wallace." It has video of Rachel Maddow's entire show and gives times for the best parts -- there are more than this short clip shows -- so you can skip ahead and easily find them.

P.S. I've figured out when Sarah Palin may announce her candidacy. She may try to scare us with an announcement on Halloween, October 31st. Hey! Everyone else has been sure when she'd announce and been wrong. Besides, it would be an "October Surprise." CBS has "How late can a Chris Christie or a Sarah Palin wait before it is too late?" Their story indicates that October 31st is the last day to enter the Florida primary.

Update: Corrected the Amazon link, above. It was a link to Nicolle Wallace's "Eighteen Acres," an earlier book.

Update: Rachel Maddow comments on Nicolle Wallace's statement at her Maddow Blog, in "The left, the right, Sarah Palin and 'cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs'."

Major news/wire service publishes story about Joe McGinniss' book: Surprise! The book is mostly about Sarah Palin's lack of interest in governing.

2011-09-28T17:18:00.000-07:00

Reuters has "Publisher stands by Palin book despite legal threat," which states, in part:

The book, "The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin," by veteran political writer Joe McGinniss was published last week as speculation mounted about whether the 2008 vice presidential candidate will launch a late bid for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

"We are confident that the reporting in 'The Rogue' is solid, reliable, and well-substantiated. We stand by our publication and our author," said Stuart Applebaum, spokesman for Crown Publishers.

In a letter from her lawyer, Palin, 48, put McGinniss and Crown Publishing on notice that they face possible legal action for defaming Palin.

Among the more sensational allegations contained in the book is an account of a one-night stand Palin is purported to have had as a 23-year-old sports reporter with a future professional basketball player.

It also contains passages by acquaintances describing Palin as a neglectful mother and accounts of cocaine use by both Palin and her husband.

But most of the book is devoted to Palin's actions as mayor of Wasilla and governor of Alaska, up to her abrupt resignation from that post in July 2009.

It portrays Palin as fascinated with celebrity and self-advancement but disinterested in governing. ... [emphasis added]

Imagine that! We may still be in the early innings of "inside baseball."

Bonus: Geoffrey Dunn, author of "The Lies of Sarah Palin: The Untold Story Behind Her Relentless Quest for Power", has written a critique of Janet Maslin's review of Joe McGinniss' book. Dunn's critique is "Blood in the Snow: Maslin’s NYT Review of The Rogue Is Intellectually Dishonest."

Some authorities on lawsuits weigh-in on Sarah Palin's threat to sue

2011-09-28T11:17:00.000-07:00

From ABC News' The Note:

Sarah Palin may have threatened to sue the publisher and author of a scathing book about her life, but her rise to fame and public prominence since her failed 2008 vice presidential bid could make her case difficult to prove, according to attorneys who deal with similar cases.

Palin’s attorney sent a letter to Crown Publishing, a division of Random House, Monday evening, informing them Palin may sue the publishing house and author of “The Rogue,” Joe McGinniss, “for knowingly publishing false statements” in the book released last week.

But attorneys who handle defamation and libel cases involving public figures say it’s not easy to prove the legal standard of whether an author either knowingly published false reporting or had malicious intent. James Janowitz, a New York attorney who has defended celebrities in defamation cases, says the bar for Palin’s potential suit ”is as high as it gets.”

“The standard is very high. It requires falsity of the statements of the reports or actual malice, and maybe they could meet that standard, but there is nothing here that would indicate they could,” Janowitz said after examining the letter sent to Crown.

“The reporter or the author is not libelous merely for repeating or reporting false things about the subject, and that’s really the key thing. It doesn’t matter that’s he’s wrong. It matters whether or not he knew what he was writing was false,” Janowitz said. “If he had contrary information or if he made it up and it was false and he had no source at all and he did it for the purpose of either hurting her or boosting the sales of his book when he knew what he was saying was probably false, then he’s in trouble. But that’s a very high bar.” ...

ABC News' article is "Sarah Palin May Have a Hard Time Proving Defamation," and it contains much more information (and opinion) than I've excerpted, here.

My opinion is here and has an example from the book illustrating how the book's author did not "present as fact" something that may be troubling Sarah Palin. That is an example of what Janowitz is talking about in the last excerpted paragraph, above. At one point in ABC's article, it's said that legal discovery might be painful for a lot of people, but consider Palingates' "Sarah Palin wants to know who said what."

Sarah Palin is NOT RUNNING -- She doesn't need a title -- I am sooo disappointed

2011-09-28T07:07:00.000-07:00

When she resigned as Alaska's governor, Sarah Palin said that she didn't need a title. When she went to Indianola, Iowa on September 3rd, Sarah Palin said, "[Y]ou don’t need a title to make a difference." Last night, on Greta Van Susteren's show, Sarah Palin said:

I'm going to keep repeating, though, Greta, through my process of decision-making with my family and with my close friends as to whether I should throw my name in the hat for the GOP nomination or not for 2012 -- is a title worth it? Does a title shackle a person? Are they -- someone like me, who's a maverick -- you know, I do go rogue and I call it like I see it, and I don't mind stirring it up in order to get people to think and debate aggressively, and to find solutions to or the problems that our country is facing.

Sarah's peeps at that noisy astroturf organization, c4p, were discouraged last night. So much so that early this morning they posted "Keep Your Courage, C4Peeps," which contains some comments that were ~~"plucked"~~ cherry-picked from last night's threads, threads in which many comments expressed feelings of disappointment and disillusionment, feelings quite different than the ~~hopeful~~ delusional ones this morning's post highlighted.

Sarah Palin said, last night, "Does a title shackle a person? Are they -- someone like me, who's a maverick -- you know, I do go rogue and I call it like I see it, and I don't mind stirring it up in order to get people to think and debate aggressively, ... ." There, she has come closer than she's ever come, whether she knows it or not, to admitting that she's a demagogue. Her style of "stirring it up" and "aggressive debate" aren't going to solve our problems. How did her don't-care-if-we-default attitude toward the debt-ceiling negotiations solve that problem? Her attitude made the problem more difficult to solve.

It's possible that Sarah Palin may prove me wrong -- Go ahead -- Make my day! -- Give me some blog fodder -- by running, but she hasn't been known for kindness.

TPM has "Full Text Of Palin's Resignation Speech." The Huffington Post has video and a transcript in its "Sarah Palin Resignation Speech: FULL VIDEO, TEXT."

SarahPAC has "Governor Palin's Speech at the "Restoring America" Tea Party of America Rally in Indianola, Iowa (Video and Transcript)"

Fox News has last night's appearance on Greta Van Susteren's show: "'Maverick' Palin vs. 'Quasi Reality' Show," which includes a video and transcript.

The c4p post is "Keep Your Courage, C4Peeps."

For some humor, check out Vanity Fair's "Palin’s Resignation: The Edited Version."

For an overview of the problem of Sarah Palin, Peggy Noonan's "A Farewell to Harms" is still relevant. Noonan was a speech writer for Ronald Reagan.

The Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart wrote "Sarah Palin is not running for president." Even though it's more than a year old, his story contains many links to the views of others who were explaining then why Sarah Palin can't and won't run.

Update: Uh-oh. Herman Cain is pushing back over Sarah Palin's remark, last night, that he's the "flavor of the week." CBS has a story with a title Sarah may not like, 'Herman Cain: My supporters "do not defect"'.

Update: The Christian Science Monitor has "Is Sarah Palin preparing to disappoint her fans?"

Update: Greg Sargent's Plum Line, written by Jonathan Bernstein, has "Make no mistake: Sarah Palin is still a wild card." The "Joker" is a "wild card," worth whatever its player says its worth, in some card games.

Update: The Anchorage Daily News has "Palin: Would the presidency be a demotion for a 'rogue'?"

Uh-Oh. CNN poll suggests Palin's "bag of tricks may well be empty," and WaPo's Chris Cillizza said so. Will he be sued?

2011-09-27T15:22:00.000-07:00

Here is Sarah "Hamlet" Palin, considering whether to run or not to run ... whether to sue or not to sue. She's got a lot of decisions to make. It takes a long time for her to decide.

Something that may help her decide is today's Washington Post's The Fix column, which states, in part, in "Sarah Palin, second-tier candidate:"

Amid the “will she or won’t she” speculation about former Alaska governor Sarah Palin’s 2012 presidential plans, one important thing seems to be getting lost: Palin is simply not a top-tier candidate.

New numbers from a CNN/Opinion Research poll confirm it. In a hypothetical 2012 Republican primary, Palin stood at 7 percent — tied with businessman Herman Cain and Texas Rep. Ron Paul, neither of whom are considered anything but the longshots for the nomination.

She trails frontrunning Texas Gov. Rick Perry by 21 points and second-place finisher Mitt Romney wins three times the support Palin does in the poll.

And the bad news doesn’t stop there. Just 51 percent of self-identified Republicans in the poll said that Palin has the “personality” and leadership qualities a president should have” — well below the number who said the same of Perry (73 percent) and Romney (83 percent).

With electability rising as a concern among Republican voters, the fact that she trails President Obama by 21 points in a head-to-head matchup — the largest margin of any GOP candidate — is yet more bad news for Palin. ...

... One poll is, well, one poll. But Palin’s numbers haven’t been particularly strong in quite some time — we wrote that she had reached a political tipping point way back in April — and Perry’s entrance into the contest has further complicated Palin’s path to top-tier status.

Palin has shown a tremendous capacity to surprise during her three-plus years on the national stage. But, the CNN poll suggests that her bag of tricks may well be empty — or close to it.

She's got to decide soon. Has indecisiveness ever been something voters look for in a president?

Sarah's going to sue? Have Sarah Palin and her attorney read Joe McGinniss' book? If so, do they really know how to read? -- UPDATED

2011-09-26T18:22:00.000-07:00

ABC News is running a story, "Sarah Palin Threatens to Sue ‘Rogue’ Book Publisher." They have obtained a copy of the letter sent from Sarah Palin's attorneys to Joe McGinniss' publisher, Crown Publishing. Here is the first paragraph of that letter:

(Click image to enlarge it)

Interestingly, the second sentence states, 'This book contains a series of lies and rumors presented as fact and combined with "anonymous" sources.' I've read Chapter 19 and Chapters 1 through 5. I don't recall anything that Sarah Palin might consider to be libelous being presented as fact. Nothing! The Rice/Palin story wasn't reported as fact; neither was "babygate," in Chapter 19. What is Sarah Palin complaining about?

If nothing untrue in the book is reported as fact, then by proceeding with the suit all Sarah Palin may prove is either 1) She hasn't read the book or 2) She doesn't comprehend what she reads. Writers use quotation marks for a reason and, like Joe McGinniss, they set-off long passages of quoted material and introduce it with something like "so-and-so said" or "so-and-so wrote."

Here is an example from the book, page 49:

THERE HAS BEEN much speculation that Sarah was pregnant with Track when she and Todd married in 1988. "It was essentially a shot-gun-type wedding," a friend of Todd's confirms.

If Sarah Palin is complaining about that, she may have a complaint with "a friend of Todd," not the book's author. The author hasn't presented that as fact. If the author had written

THERE HAS BEEN much speculation that Sarah was pregnant with Track when she and Todd married in 1988. It is true.

Sarah Palin might complain that the book's author had presented that as fact.

As for the issue of "anonymous" sources, here is the publisher's statement, taken from a Slate story about the claims Andrew Breitbart made when he published an e-mail written by Joe McGinniss:

Joe McGinniss’s book The Rogue is based on the author’s extensive on-the-ground reporting in Alaska, as well as in-depth interviews he conducted with approximately 200 people who have known Governor Palin at different stages of her life and career. After a thorough and careful examination of the book, including probing discussions with the author about his sources, we are confident that the reporting it contains is solid, reliable, and well-substantiated.

We'll have to see, but this may be nothing more than a publicity stunt, a poorly advised one. If anything, it may increase interest in Joe McGinniss' book.

The ABC News story is "Sarah Palin Threatens to Sue ‘Rogue’ Book Publisher," which has a link to the complete letter from Palin's attorney to Crown. It also has a link to the e-mail that Andrew Breitbart published and has been trying to peddle as proof that Joe McGinniss has no credibility. It actually supports quite the opposite conclusion. Read carefully. Does Breitbart read for comprehension?

Recently, Greta Van Susteren got into an on-air fight with Tucker Carlson over a story that his Daily Caller published about Mike Tyson's statement about the Rice/Palin story. Tucker Carlson had to school Greta Van Susteren on the use of quotation marks. Could he be of assistance to Sarah Palin and her attorneys? If you missed it, my post about the Van Susteren/Carlson fight is "Tucker Carlson has to teach Greta Van Susteren about quotation marks.

Update: I've added an example to illustrate what does not constitute "presentation as fact," and I've corrected my quote of the letter's second sentence. Palingates has an interesting post, "Sarah Palin wants to know who said what."

Update: CNN's Peter Hanby has written "TRENDING: Palin threatens lawsuit over book."

Update: The Anchorage Daily News has an AP story, "Publisher stands behind book after Palin lawsuit threat." The ball is in Sarah's court. Will she sue?

The long trip with the Palins -- Are we there yet?

2011-09-26T07:27:00.000-07:00

There isn't a lot of Sarah Palin news. My story alerts are way down ... I should have kept track of the number of them each day, then I could post about the decline -- With a chart! -- and considered the decline to be a measure of Sarah's fading star.

There is a story (again from TMZ): "Kyle Massey Thinks Bristol Palin 'Fight' Was a Setup." There was certainly a script. The question is whether the "heckler," Stephen Hanks went off-script. I think it's likely that he didn't. Did Bristol go off-script? It may just be that this thing backfired on her, so she's trying to disassociate herself from it. That's hard to do when it's on video for the entire world to see. Some have said that the Saddle Ranch Chop House is a "gay bar." It's actually a restaurant with a bar, and it's a chain restaurant, promoting itself as an "entertainment experience," with "a mechanical bull amidst the tables and booths providing endless entertainment to diners." I've never been there, but browsing the restaurant's website indicates that its clientele may be rather diverse. Would Applebee's restaurant be a "gay bar" if some gays happened to go there? It has a bar, too. Some have said that Bristol was simulating a sex act by riding the bull. What? It was a simulation of a rodeo event, an event that has nothing to do with sex. I have been to a rodeo, by the way.

Whether Sarah Palin will stop teasing about running for the republican nomination may never be known, but major clues will come as each state's deadline for entering the race passes. She can't have much influence at the convention without some delegates. Another clue would be her suspension as a Fox News contributor, but then they might suspend her for sleaziness ... Fox News does have some standards, don't they?

There will be more to post about as Joe McGinniss' book is read. There are AGIA, troopergate, babygate, earmarks, profligate spending, tax increases, reportergate, religious extremism ... . So, this may be a good time to read more of McGinniss' book.

Anyway, it's possible, just possible, that the Palins aren't driving the car anymore!

Update: The Hollywood Gossip has "Bristol Palin Heckling Incident: A Reality Show Setup?" We have to remember that everyone filmed was under contract to the show's producers, so there was a ~~setup~~ script. When people talk about a "setup," they should probably say from whose point of view they think it was a setup or not a setup: Bristol Palin's? Stephen Hanks'? Both? Some might claim that the restaurant was setup, too: it wasn't good publicity for them. I think it was a "setup" in the sense that there was a script and that both of them followed the script. Of course, someone might argue that there were cameras from two organizations present: the show's producers and TMZ, and that TMZ disrupted the production; however, no one has yet claimed that. It's unlikely that anyone will, because the show's producers would be unlikely to allow another organization to tape the event, unless they were in cahoots with them.

The Stalking of Joe McGinniss

2011-09-25T10:30:00.000-07:00

Most of the first seven pages of the first chapter of Joe McGinniss' book, “The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin,” can be read online at The New York Times' excerpt of the book, "'The Rogue'." It's there that McGinniss describes how he fortuitously came by the house next door to the Palins. He was within hours of signing a lease on an apartment in Anchorage when Catherine Taylor called to tell him about her property, right next door to the Palins. Moving in next to the Palins wouldn't have been a big deal, if the Palins hadn't tried to make it a big deal.

In Chapter Three, McGinniss describes meeting Todd Palin, wearing a "First Dude" t-shirt. They have quite a conversation, with Joe quoting himself and Todd directly. Todd was very suspicious of Joe, and the last thing Joe told him was, "Listen, I'm a good neighbor. Ask anybody. Ask Roger Ailes at Fox News. Your wife is working for him now. Roger and I disagree about everything political that it's possible to disagree about, but we've been friends for more than fourty years. Have Sarah call him and ask what kind of neighbor Joe McGinniss is going to be. He'll tell you that you're lucky it's me renting this house and not somebody who would do the kind of stuff you're afraid of."

We don't know whether Sarah talked with Roger Ailes, but just a few hours later, she posted on Facebook, and McGinniss quotes her post. McGinniss explains that the picture of him on the deck of his house, taken by the Palins, was taken while he was on his cellphone, looking into the woods. Sarah had written in her Facebook post, below the picture, "Todd went to introduce himself to the stranger who was peering in..." Joe observes that if Piper's bedroom were upstairs, as Sarah claimed, it would be Piper overlooking him rather than the other way around. Joe decides that he doesn't want any of Sarah's feigned neighborliness.

On the next day, McGinniss tells of the media frenzy that followed Palin's Facebook post. He had to tell an ABC News camera crew, filming through a window, to leave his place or he'd call the police. At 6:00 AM, Sarah had already called-in to Glen Beck's show to start a pity party. McGinniss went to City Hall to meet Wasilla's mayor, Verne Rupright, who asked him, "Do you want a gun?" McGinniss wonders whether he needs one and Rupright doesn't think so, saying that most of the threats are coming from Outside and adds, "People around here don't give a shit about Sarah anymore. They're burned out on all her drama."

The controversy over McGinniss' presence next to the Palins was being ginned-up, Outside, by Palin's supporters, who had been sicced on McGinniss by her paranoid Facebook rant. McGinniss goes on to describe how even Fox News had a discussion about whether he could be prosecuted for stalking and harassment. When the Fox crew decides that an arrest for that isn't imminent, they turn to a discussion about suing for an invasion of privacy, which they're told wouldn't be possible unless McGinniss points "those binoculars" in Palin's direction. McGinniss describes how the Fox News discussion degenerates into total lunacy, and McGinniss simply says, "I have not held a pair of binoculars in my hands since I watched a horse race at Saratoga in 2004. But Hysteria does much more for ratings than the unexciting truth." Before moving on to describe, with examples, the complete depravity of comments on right-wing websites, McGinniss states, "Once you've cut the cord that tethers you to reality, anything goes."

The media isn't so ready to uncritically report Sarah Palin's Facebook rants anymore. We can only hope that the day will come when they won't be reported at all.

I'm up to Chapter Four. It's an engaging book -- a very good read. Don't miss it. I expect that it will become "The Bible" on Sarah Palin. It does contain much that hasn't appeared on the blogs, and it shoots down some of the items that have appeared on them.

Note: "Outside" is Alaska-speak for the lower fourty-eight states.

Update: Another review of Joe McGinniss' book has appeared. It is "Book Review: The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin by Joe McGinniss."

Update: C-SPAN's BookTV has an interview of Joe McGinniss, done on the day the book was released. At the beginning of the interview, McGinniss talks about renting the house, moving to Wasilla, and the Palins' paranoid reaction to his presence.

Palin Family Circus News -- Saturday, September 24, 2011

2011-09-24T07:57:00.000-07:00

In the afterburn of image blistering stories of the Palins' infidelity, before and after marriage, Perez Hilton has learned that a dating site has offerred a $1 Million dollar reward for Sarah and Todd Palin to take a lie detector test. Are they up to it? Hilton writes:

While we'd LOVE to see Sarah be put under oath this way and forced to tell the truth, there is hardly a chance she will go through with this. She still has some dignity that she is clinging onto for dear life. She can't afford to give that up so easily.

Besides - one million bucks? She'll make that doing another season of Alaska with TLC … and she can lie all she wants!

Yesterday saw the release of what might have been a fun video of Bristol Palin riding the mechanical bull at West Hollywood's Saddle Ranch Chop House. But what might have been fun turned nasty, very nasty, after Bristol picked herself up off the floor. Now, there is an attempt to control the damage: "Bristol Palin's Rep Says She's Not A Homophobe," from Cinema Blend, comments on what Palin's rep told TMZ. TMZ has been very busy with this story: they released the video and didn't find it difficult to track down the "heckler," Stephen Hanks. It's unlikely that either Bristol or Hanks will ever recover from the damage they've done to themselves. "Bristol gets bucked by a bull, then the fireworks start" has the video, along with my opinion of it.

Joe McGinniss' book cites some interesting sources; for example, McGinniss writes, "a friend of Todd's confirms," and "Sarah's brother, Chuckie, confided to a friend in Anchorage."

Bristol gets bucked by a bull, then the fireworks start -- VIDEO

2011-09-23T07:57:00.000-07:00

Ever wanted to go clubbing with Bristol Palin? It could be fun, but then it could turn nasty.
Here is the NSFW (language) video. Bristol rides alright until about the 1:40 mark, and then ...

Apparently, someone with a video camera knew Bristol would be there. Was it a setup? Who got setup? A good publicity video, from Bristol's point of view would have ended with her getting up after being bucked off the bull. Afterward, neither Bristol nor her antagonist come across as fun people to be with.

TMZ has a story "Bristol Palin Attacked By Heckler 'YOUR MOTHER'S A WHORE'." Apparently, Bristol's filming a new reality show, which explains the camera. So, there was a ~~setup~~ script. Will this entire scene or part(s) of it end up on the cutting room floor? A lot can happen in the editing room. In fact, movies wouldn't be very interesting if it weren't for the "magic" that happens in the editing room.

The bull ride by itself is fun and interesting to watch, and it shouldn't really need any editing at all, unless they want to make Bristol out to be some sort of champion mechanical bull rider. Is there any glory in that? Actually, she rode the bull very well, and, the end, the part where the bull starts swiveling around fast and knocks her off, may be the best part. Who wouldn't get knocked off? That makes it more "real," if that's what reality shows are about.

There is an air of unreality about the confrontation, in my opinion.

Update: Huffington Post has posted "Bristol Palin On A Mechanical Bull At Sunset Strip."

Update: Bristol rode the bull at The Saddle Ranch Chop House. Here, in some Saddle Ranch publicity material, it's said, 'Saddle Ranch and its infamous mechanical bull have been featured on countless shows including "Sex and the City," "Desperate Housewives," "American Idol," "Six Feet Under," "VH1’s Rock of Love" and numerous more.'

Update: TMZ has "Bristol Palin Heckler: I'd Do It Again!" It didn't take them long to find him.

First Impressions: Joe McGinniss' 'The Rogue' has arrived! -- UPDATED

2011-09-22T07:07:00.000-07:00

Here is the obligatory photo of my book. The inside of the jacket begins with a definition from Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary:

"rogue (rōg), n: An elephant that has separated from a herd and roams about alone, in which state it is very savage."

"Very savage" might have been emphasized, but what is there is what is there. The definition is printed in attention-getting red ink. The jacket material, which is promotional material, also says, in part:

... '"On Election Day 2008, McGinniss began his on-the-ground reporting that culminated, famously, in his moving next door to Sarah Palin in spring 2010. The Rogue is the eagerly awaited result of his research and writing: a startling study of the illusion and reality of Sarah Palin -- and a probing look at the Alaska and the America that produced her. Sometimes funny, sometimes frightening, always provocative and illuminating, The Rogue answers the questions "Who is she, really?," "How did she happen?," and "Will she ever go away?"'

"In all his books, McGinniss has scrutinized the mysterious space between image and reality -- how that space is created, negotiated, and/or manipulated. Now, with The Rogue, McGinniss combines his deep appreciation of the place Sarah Palin comes from with his uncanny ability to penetrate the façades of people in public life. The result is an extraordinary double narrative that alternately traces Palin's curious rise to political prominence and worldwide celebrity status and recounts the author's day-to-day experiences as he uncovers the messy reality beneath the glossy Palin myth." ...

That may be a better review of the book than I'll ever be able to write. In the book's first chapter, Joe McGinniss explains how he came to live next door to the Palins. In the parts that I've read, he often explains how he got the information he has and tells about the people he met. Honestly, it will take me several days to finish the book. It is certainly an engaging and well written book, and I may write a review in a few days.

Something I've been particularly interested in was how Joe McGinnis came by the story of Glen Rice and Sarah Palin, and how he confirmed it. McGinniss writes, in part, beginning on page twenty-four:

... In 1987, one of the top squads to visit Anchorage was the University of Michigan, led by six-foot-eight junior Glen Rice, number 41. ...

... Whether in her professional capacity as a sports reporter or simply as a basketball groupie who'd begun to find black men attractive, Sarah linked up with Rice during the weekend tournament [Great Alaska Shootout]. One friend recalls, "They went out. I suspect it was more than that. I can't say I know they had sex, but I remember Sarah feeling pretty good that she'd been with a black basketball star."

In one version of the story, Sarah's encounter with Rice took place in her sister Molly's dorm room at the University of Alaska Anchorage. "She hauled his ass down," a friend says, "but she freaked out afterward. Hysterical, crying, totally flipped out. The thing that people remember is her her freak-out, how completely crazy she got: I fucked a black man! She was just horrified. She couldn't believe that she'd done it."

Glen Rice remembers the weekend quite differently. ...

I've omitted some contextual and scene-setting information that comes before and during the part of the Rice/Palin story that I've excerpted. I'm not interested in trying the definition of "fair use," so you'll have to read the book to get Glen Rice's take. I am convinced, however, that it happened. Sure, some may say that Joe McGinniss didn't ask Glen Rice directly whether he had sex with Sarah Palin, but a good journalist may be a good one because he knows how to ask probing questions rather than direct questions.

The Rice/Palin story isn't just a story about sex. Sarah Palin reported about the tournament, Glen Rice and Michigan while she was working at an Anchorage TV station. The story has implications for her sense of ethics and her qualifications for leadership. "Waiting for 'The Rogue' -- Sarah Palin to 'clean up' Journalism?" can be read to learn more about that. It includes video of Sarah's appearance on the sports news segment, a link to a Washington Post story confirming when the segment aired and a link to a humorous Houston Press story "confirming" the Rice/Palin tryst.

The book does not contain an index. The last printed page of the book has "Illustration Credits." There are sixteen illustrations. One is a photo of a Sports Illustrated cover from 1989 with -- Who else? -- Glen Rice on the cover; another is a photo of Sarah Palin pregnant with Track Palin, taken when the wind had come up and billowed her shirt out like a sail.

I am aware that others have spun that photo differently, and I thought that I could review Chapter 19 as a standalone chapter, but after seeing that photo, early in the book, I realized that Chapter 19 may not be a standalone chapter. My interest in Chapter 19 is how Joe McGinniss broached a story that Sarah Palin may have faked a pregnancy and his rationale for doing so.

Well! Those are my first impressions. I may have hoaxed you about having the book, huh? That photo, above, which can be magnified with a click, was photoshopped. At 184 KB, it's considerably smaller than the 25 MB that came out of the camera. The metadata is gone, so no one may be able to know anything about the camera, its lens, their settings, or when and where the photo was taken. A lot of image subtlety was lost in readying the photo for publication. The book is tilted back at a little angle, and you may be able to see that it's not two dimensional, but do ignore the bottom of the book, where it looks awful thin. The book really has 321 numbered pages and is slightly less than an inch thick. Prove that it isn't so. By the way, the photoshopping didn't involve making the bottom of the book look thin. The only way anyone may be able to be sure about how and why it was photoshopped may be to get the pixels that came out of the camera for comparison with the published pixels. No! You can't have them. Am I hiding something? My refusal to give up the pixels must be proof of that, right?

None of the pregnancy comparison photos that some claim are proof of the sarah-faked-it story appear in Joe McGinniss' book.

The book is a good read and was worth buying. The book is Joe McGinniss' “The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin.” At that particular Amazon link (it is the Washington Post's link), the book is priced at $13.99 with free 3-5 day shipping. The book may also be available from your library, or from a library with which your library has an inter-library loan agreement. Some libraries may have an audio version of the book available.

An excerpt from Chapter 1 of the book can be read at the New York Times' "'The Rogue'."

Update: The photo of Sarah Palin, "big as a whale," some say, when she was pregnant with Track Palin is on page 49. It is not listed in the "Illustration Credits," page 321. Joe McGinniss writes, on page 49:

THERE HAS BEEN been much speculation that Sarah was pregnant with Track when she and Todd married in 1988. "It was essentially a shot-gun-type wedding," a friend of Todd's confirms. ...

... Sarah's pregnancy proceeded uneventfully, though -- in contrast to her 2007-2008 pregnancy with Trig -- quite noticably. "I've got pictures of Sarah being very, very, very pregnant with Track," an old friend says.

Some photos are credited on page 321. That the one on page 49 isn't credited may be a simple oversight, but we don't know what criteria determined which illustrations required credit. By my count -- I didn't count twice -- there are twenty "illustrations" in the book, with an "illustration" considered to be anything of a pictorial nature -- non-text, although some contain text. I didn't count a portrait of Joe McGinnis that appears on the inside, back of the dust jacket.

Todd Palin 'will file for divorce and advisers tell Sarah White House dream is over' after release of explosive biography -- UPDATED

2011-09-21T11:26:00.000-07:00

An article at The UK's Mail Online has:

Sarah Palin could be set to lose both her marriage and her political career after the release of the explosive biography on the Tea Party darling.

The National Enquirer claims that friends close to the politician and her husband Todd say he is 'fed up' with the constant scandals that have plagued their marriage ever since she ran for vice president and is ready to file for a divorce.

As well as kissing goodbye to her marriage, it has also been alleged that her advisers have told her to kiss goodbye to the White House fearing a bid would be 'political suicide'. ...

... A source close to the former vice presidential candidate said: 'Sarah Palin has been destroyed by Joe McGinniss' no-holds-barred biography. It exposed all her lies, cover-ups and secrets.

'As a result she has been told by her advisers that it would be political suicide to announce a White House candidacy. The press and her opponents would have a field day digging into the dirty details of her background.'

The bombshell book is said to have put the final nail in the coffin of her marriage, after Sarah's brother Chuckie was quoted saying his sister and Todd's marriage was over.

A friend told the National Enquirer: 'The final straw was McGinniss quoting Sarah's brother Chuckie telling a friend they don't have a marriage.

'Todd felt as if he was stabbed in the back by his own brother-in-law after 23 years of being married to the guy's sister, and having five kids together.' ...

I don't know how much of the Mail Online's story is true. Palin's political career may have been over before the book was published. "Palin, Inc," however, may have been mortally wounded by the books revelations. If so, there may no longer be a reason for the Palins to continue their ~~marriage~~ business partnership. In an Esquire magazine article, Sarah Palin had this to say about marriage: "This is what I've been telling Bristol, before she gets married, is, Bristol, there are definitely gonna be tough parts in marriage. You have to look at those tough times and remember that you have essentially a business contract with this person. You've signed an agreement: You're going to be together. And you look at it that way as you work through the tough times, because I guarantee the better time is there on the other side. That's how we've looked at it." Alaska is a community property state. Half of all the dough Sarah has made could be his. Will Todd Palin cash out?

It's interesting that a friend of Sarah Palin's brother, Chuck, may have been one of Joe McGinniss' sources.

The Mail Online's entire article can be read by clicking on the post's title. The article has a lot of photos.

What Sarah Palin told Bristol about marriage can be found in Esquire's "Sarah Palin: What I've Learned."

Update: My book arrived! On page 50, Joe McGinniss writes, 'Some say the marriage proved rocky from the start. "They don't have a marriage," Sarah's brother, Chuckie, confided to a friend in Anchorage."I don't know how they live together."' A friend of Chuckie -- Is that what they call him? Name reminds me of the doll in "Child's Play." -- was one of McGinniss' sources. Look out for low-flying cans in Wasilla, tonight.

Joe McGinniss' book, “The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin,” is a good read and worth buying.

Update: In November of 2010, the Palins went to People magazine to shoot down a divorce story. Are they still able to get the attention of a publication like People magazine? Is "Palin, Inc" still a going concern?

Waiting for 'The Rogue' -- Sarah Palin: Zombie. On-Again, Off-Again Candidate

2011-09-21T08:11:00.000-07:00

Sarah Palin did say that her timeframe to decide would be August/September. Then she thought deciding could take longer, so that wasn't definite. ABC News has a short report about her appearance on Hannity's show, last night, where she indicated that her tease could go on indefinitely:

According to Sarah Palin, there’s still time to jump into what’s bound to be an “unconventional” presidential race.

“There is still time, Sean, and I think on both sides of the aisle I think you’re going to see people coming and going from this race,” she said on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show tonight. “And I’m still one of those still considering the time factor.”

When Hannity said the former Alaska governor would have to decide by November, at the latest, for legal reasons, she agreed — to an extent.

“You do, I mean legally you do,” she said. “But I do think Sean, this is going to be such an unconventional election cycle. … Mark my word, it is going to be an unconventional type of election process.”

She could wait until election eve, then buy a TV ad to declare her candidacy and ask everyone to write-in her name. Palinbots might be able to learn to spell p-a-l-i-n overnight, but would that be a vote for Todd or for Sarah? Bristol? That they can open their wallets for her doesn't mean they can string two words together.

The republicans should add a lectern for her at their debates. If she doesn't show, they could occasionally go for a wide shot of the stage and flash a cartoon picture of Sarah the Hockey Mom, Sarah the Frontierswoman ... whatever, trying to hide behind her lectern. It would be even better if the other candidates looked in the direction of Sarah's lectern with a startled, scared look, saying things like, "What was that?" For a little variation, the candidates might also sing in unison that old favorite line of Ronald Reagan, "There she goes again," in Rocky-Horror-Picture-Show style, to the tune of "There She Is, Miss America." There are a lot of possibilites there. The ratings for the debates could go way up. Isn't almost everyone ready to laugh at Sarah Palin?

The ABC News item is "Sarah Palin Says There’s ‘Still Time’ to Get in ‘Unconventional’ Race." More seriously, what does Palin mean by saying in response to Hannity's remark about the legal filing deadlines, "You do, I mean legally you do,” she said. “But I do think Sean, this is going to be such an unconventional election cycle. … Mark my word, it is going to be an unconventional type of election process."

My copy of "The Rogue" is in the area and "out for delivery," so it should appear today. If so, I'll try to post something about it tomorrow morning.

Waiting for 'The Rogue' -- Joe McGinniss is NOT "too busy being nasty to be lucid." Listen to him talk about his book on WNYC

2011-09-20T15:01:00.000-07:00

Joe McGinniss doesn't sound like a guy "too busy being nasty to be lucid." He doesn't sound nasty at all.

McGinniss has been interviewed on WNYC's Leonard Lopate show. Early in the interview, McGinniss talks about the use of anonymous sources and explains their use. He says that Glen Rice confirmed the story of his hookup with Sarah Palin; he talks about Palin's reaction to the fling, a reaction that he says he learned about from several sources. McGinniss also talks about his "trignosticism," Palin's religious extremism and her inability to separate church and state ... . McGinniss believes that Palin's extreme religious beliefs are her most dangerous beliefs. Listen to him being interviewed on WNYC's Leonard Lopate show:

You know, it may be that it is Sarah Palin who is "too busy being nasty to be lucid." That could explain her "word salad."

By the way, Sarah Palin's fling with Glen Rice isn't just about sex. See my post "Waiting for 'The Rogue' -- Sarah Palin to 'clean up' Journalism?" to discover how that fling has implications for Palin's ethics and leadership abilities.

The "too busy being nasty to be lucid" quote is from The New York Times' review of McGinniss' book, “The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin.” I wrote about the Times' review in my post "Janet Maslin's NY Times review of Joe McGinniss' book destroyed his credibility? Is pro-palin?" and in Waiting for 'The Rogue' -- Do we know how to read?"

An e-mail arrived from Amazon stating that my book may be 1-2 days late. At 4:29 PM (Eastern? Central?), it left Louisville, KY. So much for paying $4.99 for have-it-on-the-20th shipping. But good things are worth waiting for, and I'd rather have a book on paper than an e-book -- "real" books are still easier to read.

Waiting for 'The Rogue' -- Tucker Carlson has to teach Greta Van Susteren about quotation marks

2011-09-20T07:37:00.000-07:00

Whether people really know how to read is a serious question. I expressed some of my concerns with my post, "Waiting for 'The Rogue' -- Do we know how to read?" Now, Tucker Carlson has got into a fight with Greta Van Susteren, who, apparently, doesn't know anything about quotation marks! The story is interesting, because it's a story about how "conservatives" are at each other's throats over what Mike Tyson said about what the National Enquirer reported about what Joe McGinniss' book reported:

Tucker Carlson's website, The Daily Caller, wrote "TheDC Morning: Carlson explains to Van Susteren how quotation marks work" after Carlson's appearance on Van Susteren's show. Mediaite has a story, too: "Tucker Carlson And Greta Van Susteren Tear Each Other Apart Over Mike Tyson Story." Mediaite also has "Mike Tyson Disgraces Himself With Sarah Palin/Glen Rice Race ‘Commentary'," which embeds a video of Tyson's statement, after cautioning its readers about the content. I listened to it, and Tyson may be right about something. He said something like, "Race won't matter when we all look alike."

When my copy of Joe McGinniss' new book, “The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin,” arrives, I may review Chapter 19 right away. Undoubtedly, some will write, "Joe McGinniss said ... ." I suspect that Joe McGinniss is reporting what others have said or written. There is a difference, and I am interested in how he broached the subject of "babygate." I am aware that Chapter 19 should be considered in the context of what has gone before, but how McGinniss broached the subject may not require that context.

Yesterday, there was an e-mail indicating that my copy of the book had shipped. This morning, package tracking says that as of 10:00 AM, in Louisville, Kentucky, there is a "Delay in delivery due to external factors." Could it be that there are so many copies of the book to be delivered that some ~~dis~~organization got overwhelmed? Good things are worth waiting for, right? Who knows? The book may still arrive today.

Update: Latest tracking status on "The Rogue" is: Arrival Scan - September 20, 2011 11:22:00 AM (In Lousiville, KY). Could it be that there are so many pallets of books on the move that they didn't have enough cargo planes to handle them?

Update: An e-mail from Amazon says, "We're writing to let you know there was a transit delay and the delivery of your package [...] may be delayed by 1 - 2 days. Tracking status indicates that it left Louisville, KY at 4:29 PM. I'll have to see about getting the $4.99 deliver-it-on-the-20th-shipping-fee reduced or refunded.

Waiting for 'The Rogue' -- Sarah Palin the Mother of 'Stupid Conservatism'

2011-09-19T12:26:00.000-07:00

Sarah Palin has tried to invent a new variant of conservatism, calling it common-sense conservatism. But, in "Egghead and Blockheads," Maureen Dowd writes:

... The Republicans are now the “How great is it to be stupid?” party. In perpetrating the idea that there’s no intellectual requirement for the office of the presidency, the right wing of the party offers a Farrelly Brothers “Dumb and Dumber” primary in which evolution is avant-garde.

Having grown up with a crush on William F. Buckley Jr. for his sesquipedalian facility, it’s hard for me to watch the right wing of the G.O.P. revel in anti-intellectualism and anti-science cant.

Sarah Palin, who got outraged at a “gotcha” question about what newspapers and magazines she read, is the mother of stupid conservatism. Another “Don’t Know Much About History” Tea Party heroine, Michele Bachmann, seems rather proud of not knowing anything, simply repeating nutty, inflammatory medical claims that somebody in the crowd tells her.

So we’re choosing between the overintellectualized professor and blockheads boasting about their vacuity?

The occupational hazard of democracy is know-nothing voters. It shouldn’t be know-nothing candidates.

Dowd doesn't spare Rick Perry, either.

What may have happened to the republican party is that knowledgeable people were so appalled at the consequences of "Reagonomics," which led to two off-budget wars, deregulation and the financial collapse in 2008, that most of them no longer participate in the party. So, we see a lot of know-nothings on the stage at each debate. At the last debate, Jon Huntsman, according to The New York Times, told the other candidates:

"When you make comments that fly in the face of 98 out of 100 climate scientists, to call into question the science of evolution, all I am saying is that in order for the Republican Party to win, we can't run from science," Huntsman said. "By making comments that basically don't reflect the reality of the situation, we turn people off."

If republican primary voters are like most of the republican candidates, Huntsman has a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination.

Just one more day until Joe McGinniss' new book, “The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin,” arrives. Sarah Palin died, politically, before the book was finished, but will it have any affect on "Palin, Inc?" Most of her speaking engagements seem to have been made with audiences of social conservatives, especially anti-choice groups. Will they continue to ask her to speak? What for? A pity party? Thing is, there are all sorts of pity parties people can attend, and no one may be interested in paying to attend one.

Waiting for 'The Rogue' -- Sarah Palin a Kardashian Sister?

2011-09-18T06:46:00.000-07:00

I don't know much about the Kardashian sisters. Perhaps they'll feel insulted to discover that they're thought to be like Sarah Palin, but that's the thesis of a story in The New York Daily News:

Sarah Palin, the darling of a pro-life party that cheers Texas executions at presidential debates, has made an insanely lucrative career out of being famous, a Kardashian sister of American politics.

This week she becomes even more famous because of a new book written about her by Joe McGinniss, who became famous for writing a book called "The Selling of the President 1968."

One of the stars of that book was Roger Ailes, who runs Fox News, where Palin has been a pinup girl since the last campaign, even if there was never a chance she was going to run for President, and not just because she would have to take a pay cut.

Are you kidding? Palin constantly builds her brand and her bank account by not running, no matter how many bus tours she makes across America. As Bill Maher likes to point out, when Palin ran for vice president her idea of a "gotcha" question was being asked what she likes to read.

That doesn't mean she doesn't know how to sell herself. Call it "The Selling of a Non-President 2012." ...

The complete story is "Sarah Palin is the Kardashian of politics, making a lucrative career out of being famous." It has an online poll that asks, "What best describes Sarah Palin?" My money is on "Cartoon character." Admit it. It's true! Don't deny it.

There are some other interesting things to read while waiting for "The Rogue." One is "The Political Provocateur," by the editor of The New York Times Book Review. It is an interesting comparison of Joe McGinniss' new book, “The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin,” with his "The Selling of the President," published in 1969. That article is a must read for anyone interested in how a political book can be effectively marketed. Another thing to read is The Toronto Star's review of McGinniss' book, "Book sets out to find Palin — and destroy her," which begins: "Weighing in at 318 pages, The Rogue isn’t merely an act of character assassination — it is one long, hard, steel spike through the political heart of Sarah Palin."

My book should arrive Tuesday (by 7:00 PM). I'll have to read it before writing a review, and I don't know when that will appear, because I won't have time to sit down and read the book straight through. I am interested in how the Rice/Palin fling was confirmed, among other things. That fling has serious implications for anyone considering Palin's ethics and leadership abilities. If you're curious about that, see my "Waiting for 'The Rogue' -- Sarah Palin to 'clean up' Journalism?"

Waiting for 'The Rogue' -- Do we know how to read?

2011-09-17T06:36:00.000-07:00

In her New York Times review of Joe McGinniss' book, “The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin,” Janet Maslin indicates that McGinniss wrote about babygate when she wrote:

... With the same imprecise aim he cites conspiracy theories that Ms. Palin may not be the mother of her youngest son, Trig, and questions the circumstances under which he was born. Mr. McGinniss puts forth a provocative case for doubting Ms. Palin’s account of Trig’s birth, which involved a round trip between Alaska and Texas while she was supposedly in labor. But then he comes to an indefensibly reckless conclusion: “It is perhaps the most blistering assessment of her character possible that many Wasillans who’d known Sarah from high school onward told me that even if she had not faked the entire story of her pregnancy and Trig’s birth, it was something she was eminently capable of doing.” ... (emphasis added)

Maslin's "indefensibly reckless conclusion" may be that "it was something she [Palin] was eminently capable of doing," and, so, some think, can be considered to be evidence that Palin faked a pregnancy. But that appears to be the conclusion of "many Wasillans." Does McGinniss agree? He wrote, "It is perhaps the most blistering assessment of her character ... ." The conclusion that Palin faked a pregnancy because she's capable of doing so can be called indefensible and reckless, because almost everyone is capable of doing much worse than faking a pregnancy. For example, everyone (able-bodied) has the capacity to kill. An argument that someone murdered someone else because he or she was capable of it is nonsense, not to mention indefensible and reckless. What about something less than faking a pregnancy? Lying? Wouldn't it be foolish to accuse someone of lying because he or she is capable of lying? It wouldn't just be foolish, but indefensible and reckless. But has McGinniss been "indefensible and reckless" here? Read carefully.

At this point, without reading the book, we don't know whether McGinniss believes that babygate writings are conspiracy theories. But in a Washington Post review of the book, Nick Gillespie writes:

... He leaves no ambiguity, though, about the import of what he calls “the unanswered question” of Trig, Palin’s son with Down syndrome, who was born in 2008. Untroubled by a lack of actual evidence, a small but unbowed band of Palin critics has long wondered aloud whether she is the boy’s biological mother. Like all conspiracists, they insist that they are only asking questions that could be readily answered by nothing more out of the ordinary than a full data dump of Palin’s obstetrical records. McGinniss approvingly quotes blogger Andrew Sullivan, who has insisted that “if Palin has lied about [giving birth to Trig], it’s the most staggering, appalling deception in the history of American politics.”

What exactly McGinniss thinks is “unanswered” about Trig’s birth is unclear, since he [McGinniss] avers that, unlike Sullivan and other gynecological obsessives, he absolutely believes Palin is Trig’s mother: “It seemed outlandish, even indecent, to suppose that Trig might not be Sarah’s child. I did not, and I don’t.” And then he proceeds to devote more than a dozen pages to rehashing every conceivable theory — and some inconceivable ones — that she faked the birth. ... (emphasis added)

Apparently, Gillespie is quoting McGinniss' book. If so, Joe McGinniss believes that Sarah Palin gave birth to Trig: There are quote marks around the sentence containing, "I did not, and I don't." Read carefully. We still don't know whether McGinnis calls babygate a conspiracy theory; Gillespie essentially has. Considering that he believes that Palin gave birth to Trig, does it matter whether McGinniss calls babygate a conspiracy theory?

What Gillespie has missed, apparently, is that McGinniss is simply describing the "conspiracy theories." Apparently, McGinnis is leaving it up to the reader to decide whether babygate writings are true, false or irrelevant. Apparently, McGinniss is simply describing what's out there. Apparently, Gillespie is complaining that McGinniss included things in the book that he (McGinniss) doesn't believe. Someone else might complain if McGinniss omitted something he doesn't believe.

Of course, we'll have to read the book to form our own opinions and know what McGinnis believes, where what he believes matters, being careful to distinguish McGinniss' statements from those of others. We should do the same while reading a review: distinguish between what McGinniss writes and what the reviewer writes. Read carefully. Watch for the quote marks and the use of the subjunctive mood.

Waiting for 'The Rogue' -- Sarah Palin to 'clean up' Journalism?

2011-09-16T10:26:00.000-07:00

There may be more to the story about Sarah Palin's fling with Michigan basketball player Glen Rice than meets the eye. When Rice played with the Wolverines in the Great Alaska Shootout, Sarah Palin reported about the Shootout on a TV sports segment:

The Washington Post's The Early Lead column reported:

... Palin, according to the book [Joe Mcginniss' “The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin], had a fling thing with Rice in 1987, while he was in college and she was a sports reporter fresh out of college and working at KTUU in Alaska. Rice was a junior at the University of Michigan at the time and their one-night stand occurred while he and the Wolverines were playing in the Great Alaska Shootout. ...

Yet Sarah Palin has had the reckless nerve to say of journalism:

I want to help clean up the state that is so sorry today of journalism. And I have a communications degree. I studied journalism, who, what, where, when, and why of reporting. I will speak to reporters who still understand that cornerstone of our democracy, that expectation that the public has for truth to be reported. And then we get to decide our own opinion based on the facts reported to us.

The 5 Ws, but what about E? Ethics. Journalistic ethics. Should a journalist have a fling with anyone he or she reports about, or report about an organization that person is associated with? What could go wrong? It's known as a conflict of interest.

Sarah Palin's report of the Shootout may be factually accurate, but there was an ethical lapse there. Can Sarah Palin be trusted to 'clean up' something she has fouled? A leader leads most effectively when he or she leads by example. What sort of example has Sarah Pain set for aspiring journalists, especially young women? If Sarah Palin cannot lead in relatively small things, how can she possibly lead the nation?

Update: The Houston Press' Hair Balls blog has "Glen Rice Allegedly Slept with Sarah Palin," which describes Palin's reporting about a Michigan game and Glen Rice.

Janet Maslin's NY Times review of Joe McGinniss' book destroyed his credibility? Is pro-palin?

2011-09-15T06:53:00.000-07:00

I was shocked, just shocked at some of the reaction to Janet Maslin's review of Joe McGinniss' soon-to-be-released book, “The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin.” Some claim that The New York Times has destroyed McGinniss' credibility; others that Maslin is pro-palin. Neither of those claims seem true to me; the review is simply Maslin's opinion of the book, and it's really a thought provoking review.

In the context of yesterday's story about Sarah Palin's relationship with Glen Rice, Maslin wrote, quoting the book, ' “A friend says, ‘Sarah and her sisters had a fetish for black guys for a while.’ ” Mr. McGinniss did in 2011 make a phone call to the former N.B.A. basketball player Glen Rice, who is black, and prompted him to acknowledge having fond memories of Sarah Heath. While Mr. Rice avoids specifics and uses the words “respectful” and “a sweetheart,” Mr. McGinniss eggs him on with the kind of flagrantly leading question he seems to have habitually asked. In Mr. Rice’s case: “So you never had the feeling she felt bad about having sex with a black guy?” ' I take that to mean that Rice confirmed the story for McGinniss. Of course, we'll have to read the book to be sure. Doesn't a good review make you want to read the book? What was McGinniss' conversation with Rice like? How did he manage to confirm what was gossip and in doing so make it news? How does a journalist get people to talk? How does a journalist confirm a story? Everyone interested in journalism may learn something by reading the book.

Maslin is critical of McGinniss' inclusion of much that she says is already known on the internet, writing, '"Although most of “The Rogue” is dated, petty and easily available to anyone with Internet access, Mr. McGinniss used his time in Alaska to chase caustic, unsubstantiated gossip about the Palins, often from unnamed sources like “one resident” and “a friend.”' However, if McGinniss has confirmed those stories, as he appears to have done with the Glen Rice story, a story I've never seen on the internet, then we shall have something much better than much of what has been available on the internet.

Maslin expressed her concern about gossip by writing, "A journalist as seasoned as Mr. McGinniss surely knows what these details will do to his credibility regarding the book’s more serious claims." If, however, the gossip was confirmed by McGinniss, it's left the realm of gossip and become news and, so, will give his credibility a boost. An unconfirmed story, if McGinniss states that he was unable to confirm it, won't diminish his credibility. The publisher undoubtedly fact-checked the book.

Maslin indicates that McGinniss wrote about "babygate" when she wrote:

With the same imprecise aim he cites conspiracy theories that Ms. Palin may not be the mother of her youngest son, Trig, and questions the circumstances under which he was born. Mr. McGinniss puts forth a provocative case for doubting Ms. Palin’s account of Trig’s birth, which involved a round trip between Alaska and Texas while she was supposedly in labor. But then he comes to an indefensibly reckless conclusion: “It is perhaps the most blistering assessment of her character possible that many Wasillans who’d known Sarah from high school onward told me that even if she had not faked the entire story of her pregnancy and Trig’s birth, it was something she was eminently capable of doing.”

I think that Maslin's "indefensibly reckless conclusion" is that "it was something she [Palin] was eminently capable of doing." That appears to be the conclusion of "many Wasillans." Does McGinniss agree? He wrote, "It is perhaps the most blistering assessment of her character ... ." The conclusion can be called indefensible and reckless, because almost everyone is capable of doing much worse than faking a pregnancy. For example, everyone (able-bodied) has the capacity to kill. An argument that someone murdered someone else because he or she was capable of it is nonsense, not to mention indefensible and reckless. What about something less than faking a pregnancy? Lying? Wouldn't it be foolish to accuse someone of lying because he or she is capable of lying? It wouldn't just be foolish, but indefensible and reckless.

Maslin also notes that McGinniss' book covers Troopergate, AGIA and dominionism. Is the book "too busy being nasty to be lucid?" We'll have to read the book to form our own opinions.

Janet Maslin is a book and film critic for The New York Times. A list of her reviews since 1977 and available online is here. Her review of McGinniss' book is "Sarah Palin Could See This Guy From Her House."

The New York Times has published 'The Rogue', an excerpt from McGinniss' book.

Update: Poynter has "Garry Trudeau calls Joe McGinniss’s book ‘meticulously reported’."

Update: I've just pre-ordered the book and paid $13.99 + $4.99, the $4.99 to have it delivered on the 20th! Oops! The confirming e-mail says, "Delivery estimate: Sept. 20, 2011." If it doesn't arrive on the 20th, what should I do? Get mad at Joe McGinniss?

How to confirm a Sarah Palin story -- Updated: Story in The NY Times -- Re-Updated: NY Times publishes excerpt of 'The Rogue'

2011-09-14T06:50:00.000-07:00

I am not a journalist. In fact, I don't have a single journalism class under my belt. I may not even be a writer: on a good day I might be lucky to be considered a junior writer. So it was interesting to read, this morning, about a story that's said to originate in Joe McGinniss' book, “The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin.” It's said in a National Enquirer story that Sarah Palin had a "fetish" for black men and "had a steamy interracial hookup with basketball stud Glen Rice less than a year before she eloped with her husband Todd."

What was interesting was that it's said that McGinniss got confirmation of the story from Glen Rice, himself. So that's how it's done! It never occurred to me, a non-journalist, that a story about Sarah Palin could become news if the story could be confirmed. A conversation between a tipster and a journalist might go something like this:

Tipster: Sarah had a one-night stand.

Journalist: How do you know?

Tipster: It was steamy, man.

Journalist: And with whom did she have this steamy, one-night stand?

Tipster: Glen Rice, the NBA star.

Then, the journalist could simply check with Glen Rice to see whether he would confirm the story. Isn't that simple?

It's said that Glen Rice has confirmed the story. The National Enquirer's breathless, screaming headline is "WORLD EXCLUSIVE! SARAH PALIN BOMBSHELL BOOK SHOCKING CLAIMS!" Larry Brown Sports has "Glen Rice and Sarah Palin Reportedly Had One-Night Stand." The story at Larry Brown Sports links to a video of Sarah Palin as a sportscaster on an Anchorage TV station.

Could I get Joe McGinniss to confirm this story about something that's said to be in his book? Me? A lowly blogger? Nah! Don't even ask. Just hit publish!

Update: The Washington Post has "Report: Glen Rice, Sarah Palin had a one-night stand in ’87," which embeds the Sarah Palin sportscaster video.

Update: The Miami Herald has "Glen Rice: I slept with Sarah Palin."

Update: The New York Daily News has "Sarah Palin had sex with basketball player, snorted cocaine and cheated on husband, book claims."

Update: The New York Daily News has "Mama Grizzly Palin Mauled In New Tell-All Book." What will we tell the cubs?

Update: The New York Times has "She Could See This Guy From Her House," written by famous book and film critic Janet Maslin:

... And these stories need not be consistent. “The Rogue” suggests that Todd Palin and the young Sarah Heath took drugs. It also says that she lacked boyfriends and was a racist. And it includes this: “A friend says, ‘Sarah and her sisters had a fetish for black guys for a while.’ ” Mr. McGinniss did in 2011 make a phone call to the former N.B.A. basketball player Glen Rice, who is black, and prompted him to acknowledge having fond memories of Sarah Heath. While Mr. Rice avoids specifics and uses the words “respectful” and “a sweetheart,” Mr. McGinniss eggs him on with the kind of flagrantly leading question he seems to have habitually asked. In Mr. Rice’s case: “So you never had the feeling she felt bad about having sex with a black guy?” ...

I read that as an indication that Glen Rice confirmed the story.

Update: A three page excerpt of McGinniss' book has been published by The New York Times, here. It's about McGinniss' adventure of looking for a place to rent in Alaska.

Update: Joe McGinniss will be interviewed on NBC's Today Show, tomorrow at 7:00 A.M (Eastern, check your local schedule). The show will include Todd Palin's -- Palin Inc's CEO? -- response to the book.

Update: The Daily Beast's Book Beast has "New Palin Book’s 6 Juiciest Leaks."

Here is Joe McGinniss' interview on "Today:"

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The Tea Party's Dark Underside

2011-09-13T09:18:00.000-07:00

Here's a clip of Ron Paul being cheered as he answered a question about an uninsured man at last night's republican debate:

Paul was later booed for suggesting that not every muslim is responsible for 9/11. Rick Santorum ~~feigns incredulity~~ watches increduously as Paul answers:

It may have been shocking for Rick Santorum to hear -- from another republican -- that some of the ideas he cherishes are nonsense.

Firedog Lake has "Tea Party Debate Shows America What Everyone Can’t Stand About the Tea Party" and Think Progress has "Tea Party Debate Audience Boos Ron Paul For Saying All Muslims Aren’t Responsible For 9/11." Thank-you, both, for the videos.

Palin Family Circus News -- Monday, September 12, 2011

2011-09-12T10:33:00.000-07:00

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."

One of Mama Grizzly's Cubs won't endorse Jon Huntsman

2011-09-09T07:37:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, Thursday, South Carolina's governor Nikki Haley said that she won't be endorsing Jon Huntsman's bid for the republican presidential nomination. Haley told Laura Ingraham:

"Naturally, I am going to go with someone that philosophically I agree with, and Jon Huntsman is not it."

Was it something Huntsman said? There was a republican debate the night before. Huntsman stood on a stage full of know-nothings, and this is what The New York Times reported about his remarks:

Just one candidate, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, defended climate research and warned that voters won't elect a Republican who ignores scientific findings.

"When you make comments that fly in the face of 98 out of 100 climate scientists, to call into question the science of evolution, all I am saying is that in order for the Republican Party to win, we can't run from science," Huntsman said. "By making comments that basically don't reflect the reality of the situation, we turn people off."

"You can't run from science," but it appears as though South Carolina's governor and all but one of the candidates for the republican nomination want to run from it, and it's quite possible that Jon Huntsman's candidacy for the republican nomination is doomed if republican primary voters are know-nothings, too.

CNN has "TRENDING: Haley rules out Huntsman endorsement," and The New York Times has "Huntsman Warns That GOP Can't Win the White House by Denying Climate Science."

President Obama on the American Jobs Act -- VIDEO and TRANSCRIPT

2011-09-08T16:33:00.000-07:00

Here is President Obama's address to a joint session of congress for the American Jobs Act. He urged Congress to "end the circus" and act now:

Here is a transcript of the President's prepared remarks, courtesy of the New York Times. At one point, the President said:

And to make sure the money is properly spent and for good purposes, we're building on reforms we've already put in place. No more earmarks. No more boondoggles. No more bridges to nowhere.

The President has stolen a lot of the Republicans' thunder; the act has tax cuts, business incentives, and will be paid for without additional taxes. The President not only discussed the jobs act, but addressed the country's future, saying at one point that we shouldn't join the race to the bottom by repealing regulations and devaluing labor, but should win the race to the top. Eric Cantor called the speech a "my way or the highway" speech. Mitch McConnell called it the President's re-election act.

The President says that he will campaign for passage of the act in "every corner of the country." As he said during the speech, most Americans will support the plan, so congressional republicans risk throwing away an opportunity to get much of what they want, just like they did during the debt-ceiling negotiations by refusing a better $4 Trillion deal. How will Republicans explain losing an opportunity to reduce workers' taxes and get new business tax credits and incentives?

The Washington Post's Greg Sargent comments on the speech in his "Obama’s bold effort to shift the conversation to jobs"

The White House has released "Fact Sheet: The American Jobs Act."

Update: The New York Times has "Obama Speaks on Jobs Plan in Virginia," in Eric Cantor's congressional district. Next Tuesday, Obama will go to Columbus, Ohio. The Times' article indicates economists believe that the American Jobs Act will work.

Update: From Richmond, Virginia, USA Today has a story, "Obama to voters: 'You have every right to be frustrated'"

I didn't watch the Republican debate

2011-09-08T08:47:00.000-07:00

I tried. I started to watch, but as soon as it was apparent that Texas governor Rick Perry (the frontrunner?) wasn't addressing Brian Williams' points about Texas' poor performance in educating its citizens, its number of people living in poverty, etc., I turned it off.

But in his opening remarks, Williams mentioned an NBC/WSJ poll that indicated that most people believe that President Obama is dealing with an inherited economic crisis. I believe he may have been referring to the response to question twenty-six, on page twenty-three of the poll: On August 11th, fifty-six percent believe it's an inherited problem, thirty-three percent believe it's Obama's problem, nine percent believe it's partly inherited and partly Obama's fault, and 2 percent are unsure. The same question was asked on June 11th, when 62 percent believed it was an inherited problem, while twenty-five percent believed it was Obama's problem. On August 11th, only half the poll's respondents were asked that question.

The poll asks many questions and indicates that people are distressed about the economy. While a majority doesn't believe that President Obama caused our economic problems, it's clear that they are unhappy with Washington's reaction to it. For example, question thirty-one indicates that seventy-one percent of the respondents have an unfavorable view of how the debt ceiling negotiation was handled. Question thirty-two indicates that thirteen percent consider President Obama most to blame for the downgrade of U.S. long-term debt, while thirty percent and fifteen percent blame congressional republicans and democrats, respectively, for the downgrade.

It surprised me that Sarah Palin announced a "full-throated defense" of the tea party after congressional tea partiers were compared to hijackers, terrorists and even "hobbits" by none other than Senator McCain. Why would she defend them after they had become despised for their role in the debt ceiling fiasco? That "full-throated defense" was supposed to have happened in Indianola, last Saturday; it didn't go over very well. The tea partier congressional seats may be up for grabs in 2012 -- someone, anyone, even a democrat in republican clothes, might successfully primary those members of congress.

Another finding of the poll is that there is not a lot of confidence in President Obama at this point in time. This morning "Dick Cheney to Hillary Clinton: Run!" appeared. Cheney hoped that Hillary Clinton would be the nominee in 2008. President Obama has said that he wouldn't mind if he were a one-term president. Will he decide not to run? Will he announce his decision tonight, when he speaks to a joint session of congress? An announcement that he won't run could free him up to play political hardball with the know-nothings. Will he be primaried? Could Hillary Clinton solve our economic problems? Could any of the republicans? I think a solution is going to hinge on confidence, a feeling by most people that things are going to get better, more than anything else. But economic policy does matter: it would be better to stimulate the economy than shut-off recovery with republicans' do-nothing policies.

Another interesting question, question twelve, indicates that 86% of respondents do not think that "the two-party system works fairly well," although most of those respondents believe that the two-party could still work well if some improvements were made; however, there doesn't appear to be any indication of what those "improvements" might be. It might have been better if the founders had created a parliamentary form of government. A third, even fourth and fifth parties might have thrived. Other advantages would have been that the roles of head-of-state and head-of-government could have been separated, and the goverment could be forced to face the voters with a simple vote of no-confidence. It's probably too late for that, now, because a constitutional convention would be required, and that would bring every know-nothing in the country out of the woodwork, attempting to stuff the constitution with bad ideas.

The complete NBC News/Wall Street Journal Survey is available in .PDF format, here. Cut-and-paste from .PDF to .HTML doesn't work very well, so let me know if I've botched anything in my parapharases of some the results, above.

No doubt that there was a lot said at last night's debate that may serve as "ammunition" against whomever the nominee may be, so here it is for reference:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Gryphen watched it and made some excellent points, here.

Factcheck.org has "FactChecking the Reagan Debate."

Nick Broomfield's film, 'Sarah Palin: You Betcha', to open in New York and L.A!

2011-09-07T09:36:00.000-07:00

Nick Broomfield, whose documentary films include "Heidi Fleiss: Hollywood Madam" and "Kurt and Courtney," has obtained funding to open his Sarah Palin documentary film in New York and Los Angeles. Additional funding for expansion to other cities has also been obtained.

From The Hollywood Reporter's story:

... It will open in New York and Los Angeles on Sept. 30, and in more cities in the weeks following.

Its world premiere is at the 2011 Toronto Film Festival this Sunday.

Broomfield raised more than $30,000 via crowd funding on Kickstarter to release the documentary's release. Private investors are contributing to its expansion. ...

They're not cherry-picking venues, like the producers of Sarah Palin's film tried to do and still failed. This is excellent news and also validates the work of Kickstarter.

Here is the "Sarah Palin: You Betcha" trailer:

Is there still enough interest in Sarah Palin to sell tickets? We'll see. Joe McGinniss' book sales numbers, too, may be an indication of whether the public is still interested in Sarah Palin.

"Nick Broomfield was awarded the BAFTA Lifetime Achievement Award for Contribution to Documentary, and was given honorary doctorates from Essex and Surrey University. He was awarded the California State Bar Award for his contribution to Legal Reform and is a founding member of the Morecambe Bay Victims Fund." -- Wikipedia's Nick Broomfield entry

Update: "'Sarah Palin: You Betcha!' doc gets distributor, opens in NYC and LA on Sept. 30" is another story, and "Freestyle takes Sarah Palin docu" is yet another.

'Lou Sarah, light of my life, fire in my belly.'

2011-09-06T19:07:00.000-07:00

The Washington Post's Alexandra Petri poignantly writes:

I think Sarah Palin and I are finally over.

Admittedly, I say that every time.

Telling someone that you’re done with Sarah Palin is like telling them that you’re finally calling it quits with cigarettes, alcohol, gratuitous references to “Moby Dick” or hunting the White Whale. It is not a remark that inspires any confidence.

But it’s all been downhill since the “blood libel.”

That’s not a sentence I thought I’d ever have to type, and it tells you how bad things have gotten.

I haven’t had anything new to say for months. I just compose Mad Libs around her name using words like “caribou” and “gormless.”

And Google Trends don’t lie. ...

More can be read at Alexandra Petri's post, "Brokeback Palin." Mad Libs is a word game. "Gormless" is an adjective meaning brainless.

Alexandra Petri's post has some affinities with Margaret Carlson's post, "Like Dog Days of Summer, Palin Is Fading Away," which disclosed that Sarah Palin's core constituency isn't tea partiers, isn't republicans ... it's the media. The public has lost interest in her, so the media has lost its easy-story cash cow. There are still some Palin stories appearing, but everyone must be asking, "What will we write about, now?"

From yesterday's appearance in New Hampshire, you can get an idea of Sarah Palin's fading star power from these photos at daylife. She must be thinking, "Where have all my fans gone?" The horror. Her expression reminds me of one in a painting of the damned on the Sistine Chapel's ceiling.

Sarah Palin, misled by Fox News, rants on Facebook

2011-09-06T10:07:00.000-07:00

From Media Matters' "Fox Doctors Hoffa Speech To Fabricate Call For Violence:"

Right-wing bloggers misled by dishonest Fox News video editing are attacking Teamsters President James Hoffa for supposedly urging violence against Tea Party activists during a Labor Day speech. Conservatives are also attacking President Obama, who appeared at the event, for "sanctioning violence against fellow Americans" by failing to denounce Hoffa. But fuller context included in other Fox segments makes clear that Hoffa wasn't calling for violence but was actually urging the crowd to vote out Republican members of Congress.

During the segment that the bloggers have latched onto, Fox edited out the bolded portion of Hoffa's comments:
HOFFA: Everybody here's got to vote. If we go back and keep the eye on the prize, let's take these son of a bitches out and give America back to America where we belong! Thank you very much!

If you'll read Media Matters' story, you'll learn that Fox News' Ed Henry initially provided the context of Hoffa's remarks, but in another segment that contextual remark, bolded above, was removed. Media Matters goes on to say, "Andrew Breitbart's Big sites, Real Clear Politics, The Daily Caller, the Media Research Center, and the Drudge Report have all highlighted that footage, using it to condemn "the violence emanating from union thug bosses" and demand that Obama "denounce" the comments. Sarah Palin, predictably, jumped to conclusions, just like Breitbart, et al. Sarah Palin's Facebook can be added to the list.

Here is an ABC News video:

And here is ABC's transcript of Hoffa's remarks:

“We got to keep an eye on the battle that we face: The war on workers. And you see it everywhere, it is the Tea Party. And you know, there is only one way to beat and win that war. The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They’ve got a war, they got a war with us and there’s only going to be one winner. It’s going to be the workers of Michigan, and America. We’re going to win that war,” Hoffa told thousands of workers gathered for the annual event organized by the Detroit Labor Council.

“President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march…Everybody here’s got a vote…Let’s take these sons of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong,” he concluded. [emphasis added]

There is nothing wrong with Hoffa's remarks. There is a war on against workers, against the middle class and the poor. There are more voters outside the tea party than inside. So vote! Win the war!

People like Sarah Palin could actually demonstrate their support for workers by supporting a living wage. With a living wage, unions might disappear. With a living wage, WalMart workers wouldn't need food stamps to survive. With a living wage, tea partiers wouldn't have to pay taxes to subsidize business.

A living wage is not the minimum wage. See Wikipedia' Living Wage entry for a brief synopsis. An advantage of having a national, federal government is that a living wage could be implemented nationwide, for all workers who aren't paid enough to support themselves.

TPM has "Teamsters President: ‘No Regrets’ After Fiery Speech Draws Right-Wing Criticism."

Update: The Washington Monthly has "Hoffa and the fainting couch," which states:

... [Hoffa] was talking about voting. This was not a call to violence — Hoffa wants to take the far-right politicians out of office, not out of existence.

The right almost certainly realizes this, and is making a fuss just to make a fuss. Fox News, in particular, just about threw a fit over the notion that Hoffa was recommending violence against Tea Partiers. A paid CNN analyst, meanwhile, said that if President Obama “doesn’t condemn” the comments, “he is sanctioning violence.”

This is all pretty silly. If the right is comfortable with Rick Perry’s comments about Ben Bernanke, and Sarah Palin’s “reload” cliche, and Mitt Romney talking about “hanging” Obama, I think conservatives can probably stop clutching the pearls over Hoffa’s line about voting.

The Washington Monthly story also compares Fox News' "quote" of Hoffa's remarks with Hoffa's actual remarks.

As Michele Bachmann fades, is there an opportunity for Sarah Palin to jump in?

2011-09-05T08:51:00.000-07:00

At the top of Google's News this morning was a story about Michele Bachmann's fade since her Iowa Ames Straw Poll victory. It's said that the "Republican political class" is concerned about Michele Bachmann's electability. Even Bachmann's campaign manager, Ed Rollins, said, “The Perry-Romney race is now the story, with us the third candidate.”

In a recent nationwide Fox News poll, registered voters were asked whether any of the Republicans were "too extreme to be seriously considered." The poll found:

Among all voters, Bachmann tops the list at 18 percent, followed by Perry at 14 percent, Palin at 12 percent and Paul at 10 percent. Four percent think Romney is too extreme. Responses were volunteered by respondents; a list was not read. About a third of voters (35 percent) said none were too extreme and 22 percent were unsure.

Among Republicans, Paul is seen as too extreme by 14 percent, Bachmann by 11 percent, Palin by 9 percent and Newt Gingrich by 6 percent. Five percent of Republicans think Perry is too extreme and 3 percent say the same about Romney. Some 38 percent of Republicans say none of their party’s announced or potential candidates is too extreme, and another 26 percent have no opinion.

For the key voting bloc of independents, Bachmann (19 percent), Perry (17 percent) and Palin (14 percent) are the Republican contenders most frequently mentioned as being too extreme to be seriously considered. Five percent of independents consider Romney too extreme.

With the poll's margin of error at three percentage points, a cluster of candidates "too extreme to be seriously considered" exists. They are Bachmann, Perry and Palin. At some point, the "Republican political class" will have to consider whether Perry can be elected. More than likely, Palin has already been dismissed by them, and Saturday, in Indianola, she joined the quasi-secessionists by citing the Tenth Amendment as an argument against the federal government. That amendment, however, is not the only part of the constitution, and if they weren't ignorant of constitutional history they would know that the federal government has grown, not because the tenth prohibits its growth but because the Commerce Clause exists, and its interpretation has enabled the growth of the federal government.

It's still early and a Republican nominee hasn't yet been chosen, but if any of those "too extreme to be considered" are the nominee, then it's likely that a democrat will be elected, because an even larger percentage of voters will consider that candidate to be too extreme, if the Democratic party can successfully convey that candidate's dangerous extremism. Each of those candidates would attempt to turn-back the clock and destroy the Social Compact that has existed since the Great Depression. We're certain to have a debate about the economy during the campaign, but if a know-nothing is the Republican nominee, that debate's outcome could have far-reaching consequences.

Will Sarah Palin jump in as Michele Bachmann fades? Possibly, but with Rick Perry, a kindred spirit, running why would she? Because the field is incomplete without a woman?

"Searching for Bachmann" was the story at the top of Google's news. Wikipedia has an introduction to the Tenth Amendment, which considers that amendment's interplay with the Commerce Clause.

I take "political class" -- chattering class? classless chatterers? -- to mean, concerning presidential politics, those actively interested in the candidates and races before the nominees are chosen. The definition is in flux, now that a celebritician is running for attention, if not office; many discussing Palin have no interest in politics. Anyway, most people don't pay attention until after the nominees are chosen.

The Commerce Clause was cited when the constitutionality of much of the New Deal's legislation was upheld.

Palin's core constituency is -- wait for it -- the media!

2011-09-04T09:58:00.000-07:00

Bloomberg View columnist Margaret Carlson writes:

... What’s left of Palin’s core constituency -- the media -- showed up on a slow news weekend to chronicle her soap opera histrionics, operational anarchy and rock-ribbed narcissism. But it’s hard to keep running on the fumes of old celebrity. Having failed to finish a single term as governor, master any policy issues, or build a competent organization, she is noted largely for the fun stuff -- looking good and appearing on television, both on her travelogue show and within the safe ideological cocoon of Fox News. She cheered her daughter Bristol on “Dancing with the Stars.” She gives lucrative speeches to friendly audiences. She got rich in a Paris Hilton kind of way, and now finds herself ridiculous in much the same vein. ...

... Palin has lost her mojo. She is no longer the singular fixation of the Tea Party, and no longer a candidate who registers high enough in national polls to be taken seriously. She has learned how to run toward a camera, but not how to run for office, and she will be left behind if she tries.

If there is anyone left who wants to wager that Palin will become president, I’ll bet an all-expense-paid trip to Alaska. If she loses, I’ll take a trip to someplace warm.

Margaret Carlson's post is "Like Dog Days of Summer, Palin Is Fading Away."

"Margaret Carlson is a former White House correspondent for TIME, where in 1994 she became the magazine's first woman columnist. A former editor at The New Republic, she appeared on CNNs "Capital Gang" for 15 years." -- Bloomberg

Will Sarah Palin be rained-out in Indianola? -- UPDATE: It is raining. C-SPAN live coverage -- RE-UPDATED: live blog

2011-09-03T08:53:00.000-07:00

It's about 10:40 AM (Iowa time) and here is Weather Underground's forecast for Indianola, Iowa, where Sarah Palin is scheduled to speak at 2:15 (Eastern time):

Thunderstorms! With a 70% chance of precipitation. If it rains, won't Michele Bachmann say it's a message from God? Aren't Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann praying for rain? There may be an epic prayer-warrior battle underway at this very moment.

Will this be a wet t-shirt show? Wouldn't her fans be thrilled?

If nothing else, it's going to be cooler, so Sarah may be able to worry less about melting in the heat.

You can watch the forecast, here, at Weather Underground's page for Indianola.

Updated update: The speech is over, so C-SPAN's coverage is over; however (at 6:24 PM (Eastern) they have the speech available for replay). Update: C-SPAN has live coverage of the event, here. Occasionally, they pan over the (small) crowd. It is raining!

Update: She's speaking, apparently the stage is covered, but it looks like it is raining on the fans. She's reading the speech. She should have practiced, not to mention that she should spend some time with a voice coach. She has a real cadence problem that detracts from whatever she may be trying to say. She's making a lot of unsupportable accusations against Obama -- red meat for the 'bots. Too funny: she says she doesn't spend money on campaign organizers; it shows in the disorganization and indecisiveness.

She's talking about "her plan." She cites the 10th amendment, but ignores how the Commerce Clause has interplayed with that. She wants to repeal "Obama Care." Let the private sector reap what they sow -- she said that! Reform entitlements, in a way that honors our committment to seniors (but what about non-seniors who've paid into social security for years?) Obama is manipulating the energy supply -- she said that. She doesn't understand that the energy market is an international market. Alaskan oil is high priced, too, just like the rest of it. "America's economic revival starts with America's energy revival?" Now, she wants to eliminate all corporate income taxes, claiming that would eliminate loopholes (surely!), and she thinks tax cuts create jobs (tax cuts don't create jobs -- increased demand for a company's products creates jobs).

I've heard enough to know that this is an appeal to the uninformed.

She said "You don't need a title ... ." NOT RUNNING!

She's done.

It wouldn't be surprising if her statement about entitlement reform is really about privatizing social security. All that might do is give the bankers fees (rents) for "managing" the money, and subject workers' money to the vagaries of the market. Why support adding a middle-man, unless you're hoping for contributions from those who would benefit by privatization? With student loans, the removal of the middle-man was done early in Obama's administration to reduce the cost of student loans.

Update: Always the tease. USA Today, reporting on last night's event at the Machine Shed Restaurant, wrote:

... When a reporter asked Palin what she thinks about the current GOP competitors, she answered: "Happy with the field of candidates. I always think that there's room for more, though, because spirited debate and more competition will allow an even better discourse and more rigorous discourse that the public deserves." ...

Obviously, at least one of the declared candidates pleases her and she could endorse him or her. Perry? Bachmann? Any of 'em? All of 'em?

Update: For those of you who may have missed the live show, it may still be available for replay at C-SPAN (it was available at 6:24 PM (Eastern)). If not, there is a CNN video here, at YouTube (it isn't embeddable). It was produced by Real Clear Politics.

Great Expectations -- 'Pit Bull' attempting a comeback -- World waiting with 'bated breath

2011-09-02T12:44:00.000-07:00

From CNN:

Des Moines, Iowa (CNN) -- Sarah Palin's speech to an Iowa tea party rally on Saturday will come on the three-year anniversary of her memorable address to the Republican National Convention in 2008, when she became GOP vice presidential nominee and an instant conservative darling.

Much has changed since then.

After the GOP ticket went down in defeat, Palin returned to Alaska and shocked Republicans by leaving the governor's mansion the following summer.

After a period in the wilderness (at times literally), she re-emerged and transformed herself into a curious amalgam of tea party firebrand, global celebrity, Facebook prognosticator, reality television star and, of course, potential presidential contender.

Now in the final stages of deciding on whether to embark on that White House bid, Palin plans to use her Iowa speech to revisit the themes of that convention address that made her a star. ...

CNN's post goes on to say:

... [A] source said Palin is attempting to burnish her image as an outsider and a reformer, reminding the audience of her record in Alaska and specifically highlighting her battles against what she called the state's corrupt Republican political class that was in cahoots with the oil and gas industry.

Palin plans to unleash a furious criticism of "crony capitalism" and attack the "permanent political class" in both parties: thinly veiled criticisms of Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who has surged to the top of most polls for the Republican presidential nomination. ...

Apparently, Palin has paid someone to write a speech for her. Her speech to the 2008 Republican Convention was written by Matthew Scully, a former speechwriter for George Bush. We rarely learn anything of what the speaker believes or thinks from such speeches. More often, this sort of speech is calibrated to appeal to particular demographic groups, so we may hear something with an appeal to the aggrieved. It is, after all, a Tea Party of America event.

But in order to make a successful comeback, Palin will have to persuade the 74% of Americans who think she shouldn't run in 2012 (just 20% think she should). And her attempt is made more difficult by the fact that 62% of white evangelical Christians and 66% of Tea Party members think she should not run. How will she turn them around? How will she get anything more than a short-term bounce in the polls?

Her pose as a reformer, an outsider fighting corruption, is belied by her record as Alaska's governor. Sure, Palin pushed pigs away from the trough ... so she and her cronies could have it all to themselves: The Bridge to Nowhere, Troopergate, Matanuska Maid Dairy, ... . And let's not forget the tax increases, earmarks, and Permanent Fund Dividend largesse (do I smell a socialist?) ... all part of Palin's record as Governor. And don't believe that government debt bothers Palin one bit: she left the city of Wasilla deeply in debt.

Note: The poll numbers are from a recent Fox News (no less) poll -- article here.

On the ground in New Hampshire: No place for a Palin candidacy -- UPDATE: No place for Palin nationally, according to new Fox News poll

2011-09-01T09:33:00.000-07:00

Marc Fortier of New Hamphire's MerrimackPatch writes:

... [A]s she [Sarah Palin] prepares to return to the Granite State on Monday for a Tea Party Express rally in Manchester, it appears influential Republicans are overwhelmingly underwhelmed by the prospects of a Palin candidacy.

According to a survey of GOP leaders in New Hampshire and two other early-voting states, 81 percent of the 151 people responding said Palin should not run. Only 15 percent said she should run, with 3 percent undecided.

"Sarah is a very polarizing gal," said one Republican polled. "Her getting in wouldn't be helpful."

"Her time has come and gone," said another. "She's a reality show star now, and that limits her credibility in the political arena."

The Patch-Huffington Post Power Outsiders poll of Republican voters in New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina comes on the heels of a survey last week that found two thirds of those queried were satisfied with the current crop of GOP candidates. ...

A "very polarizing gal" and "her time has come and gone" summarize Palin's situation very well, thank you. The negatives of being a reality show show star were expressed by none other than Sarah's nemesis, Karl Rove:

"With all due candour, appearing on your own reality show on the Discovery Channel, I am not certain how that fits in the American calculus of 'that helps me see you in the Oval Office’,” Mr Rove told The Daily Telegraph in an interview.

He added that the promotional clip for Sarah Palin’s Alaska could be especially detrimental to any political campaign. It features the mother of five in the great outdoors saying: “I would rather be doing this than in some stuffy old political office."

Sarah Palin would rather be a celebrity than hold office, because she has no interest in governing. If we had a parliamentary form of government, where the roles of head-of-state and head-of-government are separate, like Britain where the queen is head-of-state and the prime minister head-of-government, Palin might try-out for head-of-state, a ceremonial office with no responsibility for the day-to-day operation of the government and no political power. But rather than a buffoon, a head-of-state is usually someone respected and admired by a broad swath of the people, so Palin would likely be laughed off the stage.

Update: (From Fox News, about their national poll):

... [M]ost American voters -- including a majority of Republicans -- think former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin should stay out of the presidential race. ...

... All in all, most voters -- 74 percent -- think Palin should stay on the sidelines in 2012. Just 20 percent think she should run for president.

The groups most likely to support Palin running are white evangelical Christians (30 percent) and Tea Party members (28 percent). Still, majorities of those groups do not think she should run (62 percent and 66 percent respectively). In addition, 72 percent of conservatives, 71 percent of Republicans and 66 percent of independents think Palin should stay out.

Women (77 percent) are a bit more likely than men (71 percent) to say Palin should sit this one out.

Just among women, Republicans (26 percent) are more likely than independents (24 percent) and Democrats (15 percent) to think Palin should run. ...

... The poll asked voters to name any Republican contenders they felt were “too extreme to be seriously considered.” Among all voters, Bachmann tops the list at 18 percent, followed by Perry at 14 percent, Palin at 12 percent and Paul at 10 percent. Four percent think Romney is too extreme. Responses were volunteered by respondents; a list was not read. About a third of voters (35 percent) said none were too extreme and 22 percent were unsure. ...

Given these numbers, one must begin to consider whether organizations like conservatives4palin are nothing more than noisy astroturf operations.

Sarah Palin snubs 'our North Korean allies' to speak in South Korea -- She will appear with other has-beens and ex-somebodies

2011-08-31T20:39:00.000-07:00

It looks as though Sarah Palin is running for the money, not the presidency. From AFP:

SEOUL — US conservative politician Sarah Palin will visit South Korea for the first time to speak at a Seoul forum in October, the organisers said Thursday.

Maeil Business Newspaper said the former vice presidential candidate would make a keynote opening speech at the forum organised by the paper from October 11 to 13.

Palin will speak about the US economic crisis, policies to tackle fiscal woes and her country's role in the world at a time when its superpower status is diminishing, the paper said in a news report.

"She also plans to meet with South Korea's next presidential contenders and major politicians during the forum," it said without elaborating.

Former British prime minister Gordon Brown and Larry Summers, ex-director of US President Barack Obama's National Economic Council, will also speak at the event, it said.

Former Alaska governor Palin, a darling of the ultra-conservative Tea Party movement, made headlines in November last year with a verbal gaffe on Korea.

"Obviously we've got to stand with our North Korean allies," she said on a radio show when intending to refer to longtime US ally South Korea.

What qualifies her to speak about economics? Didn't she get a 'D' in economics? Of course, all she needs to know about economics is whether her speaking fee is larger than what it will cost to pay someone to write the speech for her.

Update: ABC News has "Sarah Palin to Speak in South Korea in October," which makes this observation:

... Oct. 11 is the same day Republican presidential contenders are set to debate in New Hampshire; Palin has previously said that the end of September would be her “drop dead” timeline to jump into the 2012 race. Considering the 13 hour time difference and 14 hour flight between Manchester, N.H., and Seoul, South Korea, Palin could conceivably do both, but as Politico’s Ben Smith noted, “it’s not exactly the kind of scheduling that screams candidacy.”

Confusion Reigns in Sarah Palin's Tea Party -- Iowa appearance 'on hold', 'unconfirmed' -- Person close to Palin cites 'continual lying' by Tea Party

2011-08-31T12:55:00.000-07:00

Sarah Palin was once known as the Tea Party Queen, but confusion has usurped her throne. Christine O'Donnel has been uninvited to appear at a Tea Party event with Sarah Palin, AGAIN! From ABC News:

The back and forth between Christine O’Donnell, Sarah Palin, and the tea party group putting on Saturday’s rally in Indianola, IA has resulted in O’Donnell being disinvited…again.

Originally, O’Donnell was invited to speak Monday by Tea Party of America. On Tuesday the invitation was rescinded. By Tuesday evening, though, it was back on. O’Donnell tweeted that she “humbly re-accepted the re-invitation” to speak, according to her Twitter account. Now it is back off.

Tea Party of America Founder Ken Crow said he called Christine O’Donnell’s Chief of Staff Mark Moran earlier today to break the news that the Delaware tea party darling was not going to be speaking. ...

... When asked if Gov. Palin’s people asked that O’Donnell be disinvited again before Palin re-confirmed her attendance, Crow answered, “That is private (information) between O’Donnell’s staff and the Tea Party of America.”

Earlier today, multiple media outlets reported that Palin’s event was on hold, but Crow told ABC News Wednesday morning that “we made mistakes and now we are fixing them.” It seems that the back and forth with O’Donnell is one of the things the Tea Party of America had to fix before the event could go on as scheduled. ...

Sarah Palin had been scheduled to appear for some time, but once it was announced that O'Donnell was scheduled to appear at the same event, everything went helter-skelter. Some fickle Tea Partiers, who had enthusiastically supported O'Donnell's bid for a U.S. Senate seat in Delaware last year, protested O'Donnell's invitation. Sarah Palin endorsed O'Donnell's bid for the senate seat.

Earlier, this morning, The Wall Street Journal reported that Palin had cancelled-out of the event, but in this, their later corrected story, it is said that her appearance is "on hold" or "no longer confirmed:"

Sarah Palin’s Saturday appearance at a tea party rally in Indianola, Iowa, is on hold, a person close to the former Alaska governor told The Wall Street Journal.

The person said Ms. Palin’s appearance was “no longer confirmed” and cited “continual lying” from event organizers at Tea Party of America, including a recent mixup over whether former U.S. Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell of Delaware would also speak.
Ms. Palin is known for last-minute schedule changes that whipsaw supporters and media across the country. But the latest decision is puzzling. Ms. Palin’s speech at the rally was viewed as her most high-profile appearance of the summer, fueling speculation she was indeed plotting to run for the Republican presidential nomination.

Attendees were reportedly traveling from across the U.S. to attend the rally in Iowa, which holds the nation’s first nominating contest next year.

The former governor will now appear at a Friday event in Des Moines sponsored by the group Conservatives4Palin. It is currently scheduled for 8 p.m. at The Machine Shed Restaurant, though the location will probably have to be changed, the person close to Ms. Palin said. Ms. Palin is still scheduled to appear at a Tea Party Express tour stop Monday in New Hampshire.

Ms. Palin may still hold an event Saturday, the person said, though she has no firm plans. It’s also possible she could still attend the Indianola tea party rally, the person said.

The former governor’s team decided to back out Tuesday night after rally organizers re-invited Ms. O’Donnell to speak on stage. Organizers had booked Ms. O’Donnell, who lost her 2010 bid for a U.S. Senate seat from Delaware, to speak but quickly withdrew the invitation in an effort to avoid controversy.

A Tea Party of America leader told Ms. Palin’s aides that the former governor told him to re-invite Ms. O’Donnell, which is not true, the person said, adding that there were also issues over fund-raising and logistical changes that were not approved by Ms. Palin’s team.

Whether Palin will appear may not be known until Saturday. Who could have known that a person close to Palin would say that Tea Partiers are continual liars?

Update: Real Clear Politics has a story saying that Palin will appear at the event, after all:

After a dizzying day that saw members of her inner circle threaten to pull Sarah Palin's participation in a rally Saturday in Indianola, Iowa, a source close to Palin confirmed to RCP that the former Alaska governor will in fact attend the Tea Party of America event, as scheduled.

"We had some long discussions with the organizers; we talked about our concerns and worked them out, and they stepped up their game today," the Palin source said. ...

Update: From "New Questions, and Old, Surround Palin’s Iowa Trip:" "As of early Wednesday afternoon, the appearance in Iowa appeared to be back on, though Ms. Palin’s advisers cautioned that she could still take a pass if the organizers continue to change the terms of her appearance." It's interesting that Palin is trying to blame the organizers for anything that has gone wrong and might yet go wrong. If Tea Party of America is as flaky as "Ms. Palin's advisers" imply, why did Palin ever agree to participate in their event? Was she desperate for an Iowa appearance? Was the speaking fee right? A poorly advised, indecisive candidate, and one who plans poorly, isn't what voters will be looking for during the 2012 presidential campaign.

Update: People are beginning to ask the question, "Palin 2012: Crafty or Chaotic?" which is an ABC News story about the situation. My money's on chaotic -- disorganized.

Update: Doyle McManus of The Los Angeles Times writes, in "Palin the procrastinator":

Sarah Palin is giving indecision a bad name.

Not only can't she decide whether to run for president, this week she even waffled over whether to keep a date to speak at a "tea party" rally in Iowa on Sunday, a Sarah-palooza her devotees have been organizing for weeks. ...

Sarah Palin: The Procrastinating President. It has a nice ring to it, but do we need an indecisive procrastinator? For what?

Michele Bachmann on the Causes of Natural Disasters -- WTF?

2011-08-30T06:21:00.000-07:00

The Chicago Tribune's headline to a story about this video is "VIDEO: Bachmann jokes hurricane a message from God."

Apparently, the writer thought, "She must be joking!" But, later, another headline asked, "Michele Bachmann ties God to quake, hurricane. Was she kidding?"

Then, finally, a damage control story appeared, titled "Candidate Bachmann brushes off hurricane joke." So, how can we ever know whether Bachmann is serious or joking? Her candidacy may be in its last throes.

It's not difficult to imagine a young Miss Bachmann, when asked to write about the causes of the Civil War, handing in a paper that simply said, "The war was God's punishment for slavery." Would she have passed? Would her teacher have challenged her? Would anyone tell her she could believe that if she liked, but would need to explain how an abolitionist died in the war while a slaveholder survived?

Should all evangelical Christians be condemned? Maybe not, considering an article by The New York Times' Nicholas D. Kristoff, "Evangelicals Without Blowhards," in which he writes that not all of them are blowhards. But what about Sarah Palin, who has belonged to an apocalyptic church? Rick Perry, who claims that some problems are "Acts of God?" Rick Santorum? Mitt Romney? Are all of them blowhards? Depending on which, if any, of these people win the Republican nomination, we should have an interesting national discussion about the role of religion in government. These candidates need to be challenged about their beliefs, especially about how their beliefs would affect their performance, if elected. It wasn't long ago that "God told me to invade Iraq, Bush tells Palestinian ministers" appeared in the news (another story here).

The Washington Post's article, "Sarah Palin is wrong about John F. Kennedy, religion and politics," by Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, provides some insight into Sarah Palin's views on the separation of church and state. It is worth reading, because Ms Townsend writes of John Kennedy's statement about his catholicism, when some people doubted whether he could separate church and state, if elected. Sarah Palin's criticism of Kennedy's position is a clear indication that she believes church and state are inseperable. Palin needs to be asked, "Whose church should govern us?"

Isn't Todd Palin behind Sarah Palin's Candidacy Tease?

2011-08-25T12:19:00.000-07:00

At the Iowa State Fair, Sarah Palin answered questions about when she might announce her intentions with regard to running for the republican presidential nomination:

Q: When is a good time? Do you have a timeline?
Palin: I have said that that August/September timeframe is important for logistical and legal reasons to jump in there, but…

Q: So by next month?

Palin: I think that just practically speaking that has to be kind of a drop dead time. Also, in fairness to supporters, who are standing on the timeline, and this is what I have told Todd over and over again, I don't want to be seen as or perceived as stringing people along, asking supporters, 'Oh don't just jump in there on someone else's bandwagon because I may jump in, so hold off a little bit.' That is not fair to them. After another month or two goes by, they need to know who it is that they can jump behind. Now more than ever, everybody has got to get involved in this 2012 election. They need to get out there and campaign for their chosen candidates, its all the more reason to hurry up and decide.

From this, I gather that Sarah and Todd Palin are discussing how long they can go before announcing the decision. Palin's concern for her fans argues for an announcement soon; Todd would string people along indefinitely. But Sarah is obviously conflicted in this, saying, "After another month or two goes by, they [her fans] need to know who it is that they can jump behind." But, then, she said, "Now more than ever, everybody has got to get involved in this 2012 election." But now is not "after a month or two goes by;" it is now.

If we've learned anything from this, it may be that Sarah Palin is indecisive, and that Todd Palin is, perhaps, her only advisor.

The transcript is from CNN's "Will Palin be in by Labor Day? 'I doubt it'" story, which was written in response to Karl Rove's speculation that Palin would announce her decision at an Iowa appearance on September 3.

After Karl Rove speculated, last Saturday, on Fox News, that Sarah Palin would make an announcement on September 3, Palin pushed-back over Rove's speculation. Then, Rove pushed-back by saying, "It is a sign of enormous thin skin if we speculate about her, she gets upset, and I suspect if we didn't speculate about her, she'd be upset and trying to find a way to get us to speculate about her."

Rove and Palin have sparred before. There is a round-by-round summary of their fight at The Washington Post's "Karl Rove: Not a Palin fan."

Update: Politico posted a "reality check" on Palin's possible candidacy. Her indecisiveness must be weighing on her supporters.

Update: The New York Daily News' "Sarah Palin, it's time to fish or cut bait: Stop teasing everyone about whether you'll run in 2012," written by a Republican, chastises Palin for her indecisiveness.

Spying on the enemy -- UPDATE: Palin promised to announce her candidacy on 'Bob and Mark' show

2011-08-21T09:10:00.000-07:00

Jennifer Rubin writes "Right Turn," a conservative column at The Washington Post. Rubin has a lot of contacts in the conservative world and, so, makes for interesting reading. More can be learned about what conservatives are up to by reading one of her columns than can be learned by watching Fox News for a month. It was from her column, "The myth of Palin's frontrunner status," that I learned that Sarah Palin's early champion, Bill Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, had become disillusioned with her.

On August 15, in "Palin goes back to Alaska," Rubin wrote of Palin:

Sarah Palin has taken on a pathetic quality. She’s not in the presidential race and, as I’ve long predicted, won’t be. She nevertheless pines for the spotlight. So her “One Nation” tour bird-dogged Mitt Romney’s kick off in New Hampshire. She spent the last few days weaving in and out of Iowa to lunge for the media spotlight but only attracted a single camera crew. ...

... There has always been a streak of victimhood in Palin’s act. Burned by the media, she decided to make the “lamestream media” her target. It hardly matters whether it is an emotional fixation or a carefully designed strategy to egg on the often-aggrieved hard-core conservatives. Either way, in making that her central concern she has marginalized herself. ...

And, in "Whatever happened to Sarah Palin?" on August 19:

... It’s not like Sarah Palin ever goes away. She finished her “One Nation Tour” (which focused on early-primary contests for the convenience of the “lamestream media,” on which she is dependent for attention) and went back to Alaska. But she will be back soon in Iowa. ...

... The Republican presidential campaigns are buzzing with Palin rumors. She may be hiring advance people. She is trying to round up donors. But, as with all things Palin, it’s unclear whether this is simply one more effort to keep Palin on the national stage without her declaring her candidacy. ...

... And what if, in a flight of fancy, she decides there is some untapped demand for another Tea Party-friendly candidate in the GOP presidential primary? (Notice she was not even a write-in blip at the Ames straw poll.) To begin with, the Mitt Romney camp would break out the champagne. They are already counting on a subdivision of Tea Party and social conservative support between Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and a revived Rick Santorum. Throw Palin into the mix and Romney could well be the only candidate above 25 percent in the early-state contest. (In addition, the more less-than-sterling candidates in the debate the better — less time focused on him, more sniping among the crowd, and the benefit of comparison to lesser figures.) ...

"Sarah Palin has taken on a pathetic quality." Mitt Romney would enjoy, if Palin runs and participates in the debates, "the benefit of comparison to lesser figures." Ouch! That has to hurt. A liberal or moderate might find it difficult to criticise Palin more effectively than Jennifer Rubin does.

Palin will return to Iowa on September 3 to be the keynote speaker at a Tea Party "Restoring America" event. Yesterday, Karl Rove speculated that Palin would announce her candidacy in Iowa, but why did he cite a schedule that appeared to him to be campaign apearances? The only other thing on Palin's schedule is an appearance with Glenn Beck at a "Defending the Republic" event in Missouri on October 7. The titles of those events are interesting and appear to be designed to attract those with a sense of loss: the disillusioned and aggrieved, but that is a topic for another day.

Update: If Sarah Palin runs -- if she can be believed -- she will announce on Alaska's "Bob and Mark" show. From a CBS News story of last September:

... Palin didn't directly answer when Beck asked her if she would run for president, the Anchorage Daily News reports. Instead, she said she'd make any announcement on an Alaskan talk radio show.

"If there is going to be some big national announcement I'm going to do it where it's most worthy," Palin said. "I'm going to do something big, even bigger then Glenn Beck." Referring to the Alaska morning radio show, she said, "It's going to happen on the Bob and Mark show." ...

Does Sarah Palin have a good memory? Does she keep her word? No and no, if she's going to announce in Iowa. Oh! But wait a minute ... there may be work-arounds! Could Bob and Mark do their show from Iowa? Could Palin phone-in her announcement? Could Bob and Mark carry her announcement speech live? What did Sarah Palin mean by saying that she'd announce on the Bob and Mark show? Does anything less than an announcement, live, in Bob and Mark's studio, in Alaska, count as a promise kept?

How Sarah Palin Could Win By Losing -- Updated with VIDEO

2011-08-20T10:16:00.000-07:00

This morning Karl Rove seemed to say on "Fox News Saturday" that Sarah Palin will run for the Republican presidential nomination.

The only things I see on Palin's calendar are an appearance at a Tea Party event in Iowa and an appearance with Glenn Beck.

Whatever Rove thinks, a big reason for her to run is to stay in the news. She could either skip the debates or participate in them. She could go to the debates to debate or to show the other participants her middle finger. She would get a lot of free publicity, either way. Either way, her fans would be happy; happy fans contribute. Publicity keeps the speaking business going. As time goes by, all of the candidates are going to try to distinguish themselves by sniping at President Obama. The press is more likely to cover the remarks of declared candidates.

But Palin would be running against Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann for the extremist vote. That could make Mitt Romney happy, but would it ensure that Romney would be nominated? Probably not.

The Republicans used to award each state's delegates on a winner-take-all basis, but next year some states will award delegates on a proportional basis, like Democrats do. A candidate could win 15% of a state's delegates by winning 15% of the primary vote, in a state that awards delegates proportionately. It may take longer for a front-runner and the eventual nominee to emerge under this new system. The Republican convention could open with no candidate with enough delegates to win the nomination on the first vote.

Even if Palin only gets 10 to 20 percent of the delegates, she may be able to exert some influence at the convention. There are various committees her delegates could participate in and/or gum-up with their recalcitrance and refusal to negotiate. Yes, they might even hijack a committee and hold that committee's work product hostage, like they recently held the economy hostage during the negotiations over deficit/debt reduction. If the convention deadlocks, because no candidate has enough delegates to win the nomination, her influence could be even greater as the other candidates could be forced to negotiate with her for her endorsement.

Republicans in some large states, like New York, New Jersey and California will be holding primaries that award delegates proportionately. "Twenty-four states are winner-take-all, 11 are proportional, and eight either hold caucuses or have their own election that is an alternative form of a primary or a caucus."

So, Sarah Palin should run, wreak havoc, and pay me for this excellent advice.

Here are a two links about the process: "About the Primary - Caucus - Convention System" and "Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012."

Where's Sarah Palin's Bus? 12 Things to know about Rick Perry

2011-08-14T09:43:00.000-07:00

Apparently, no one is following Sarah Palin's bus anymore. Since Iowa, Palin has only been mentioned in a story about her appearance at Ronald Reagan's birthplace. But Texas Governor Rick Perry is getting a lot of attention. Eileen Smith wrote -- before Perry announced his candidacy -- of several things people should know about Perry:

Perry's disdain for the media rivals that of Sarah Palin, as evidenced by his avoiding reporters, eschewing televised debates, and even refusing to meet with the state's editorial boards during the last gubernatorial election. Unfortunately for the governor, he's going to need the media if he wants to run on a national platform. And he's never seen anything like the Washington press corps.

As momentum builds behind Perry's potential run at the White House in 2012, the national press is sure to delve deeper into his record. As that process begins, here's a list of things Texans know about Rick Perry that the national political audience should know, too.

Smith's ~~twelve~~ thirteen things to know about Perry are:

Few Texans Would Vote for Him

He Supported Al Gore in '88

'Adios, MoFo'

Conspiracy Theory: He Backs Transnational Government

Sued Over HPV Vaccines

Coyotegate

Border Cameras, Sanctuary Cities

He's Gotten More Religious

He Pals Around with Palin

He Didn't Blame BP for the Spill

He's Not Popular with W

Friends With Ted Nugent

A Nader Connection

It is surprising that Perry is not popular with Bush supporters. It has been said that Sarah Palin is George Bush in a skirt; that Rick Perry is George Bush on steroids.

The most alarming thing about Perry is his proclivity to treat human problems as "acts of God." That is an avoidance of responsibility (blame it on God) and an abdication of the responsiblity to act (let's solve the problem). There is nothing wrong with praying about the country's problems, but all those problems were created by humans and must be solved by them.

Another troublesome thing is his secessionist mentality. The Fourteenth amendment clearly states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." The fourteenth amendment precludes secession, because secession by any state would render its citizens non-citizens of the United States. [emphasis added]

Smith's complete story in The Atlantic is "12 Things Texans Know About Gov. Rick Perry That You Should, Too." The story's byline states, "Eileen Smith is the editor of the satirical political blog In the Pink Texas, and a guest columnist at the Texas Observer. She lives in Austin."

The Texas Observer is running a cartoon, "Office of The Prophet." Instead of The Lone Star State, perhaps Texas should be called The Loon Star State.

A Los Angeles Times article, "Away from straw poll, Sarah Palin weighs her options," mentions that Palin is scheduled to appear September 3rd at a tea party rally in Iowa. Meanwhile, the bus must be going in circles, unless it turns-up in Waterloo, Iowa, tonight, where both Perry and Bachmann will appear at a fundraising dinner. What excuse could Palin use for showing up in Waterloo tonight? The bus ran out of gas? Its wheels are coming off?

Update: There has been a bus sighting in Springfield, Illinois. And, Kathleen Parker of The Washington Post asks:

Despite her persistence as a hypothetical presidential contender in polls, could it be that Sarah Palin's moment is up? Has she (finally) exploited "McCain's Folly" to the greatest extent possible?

Texas Gov. Perry Steals Iowa Spotlight from Sarah Palin

2011-08-11T18:54:00.000-07:00

There have been stories about Sarah Palin going to Iowa to steal the spotlight from actual candidates for the Republican nomination, but she, herself, has just been upstaged.

Sarah Palin said she was going to Iowa to eat junk food, but Texas governor Rick Perry is going to Iowa to campaign for the Republican nomination for President. It's probable that Perry is going to get more attention than Palin while they are both in Iowa, tomorrow.

How is Perry unlike Palin? He has completed two terms as Texas' governor, and, in his third term, he is now the longest serving governor of Texas. How many terms did Sarah Palin complete as Alaska's governor? In some other respects, they have much in common, so don't be surprised to see Palin endorse Perry.

An Austin, TX website has a story about Perry's announcement: "It's official, if familiar: Perry's in."

He (or she) who hesitates is lost.

Nobel Prize Winning Economist says We Must Defeat and Marginalize Extremists

2011-08-08T11:59:00.000-07:00

Paul Krugman of the N.Y. Times doesn't take the S&P downgrade seriously, (indeed, in today's secondary market, the 10-year note's rate is decreasing), but does say that America has big problems:

... These problems have very little to do with short-term or even medium-term budget arithmetic. The U.S. government is having no trouble borrowing to cover its current deficit. It’s true that we’re building up debt, on which we’ll eventually have to pay interest. But if you actually do the math, instead of intoning big numbers in your best Dr. Evil voice, you discover that even very large deficits over the next few years will have remarkably little impact on U.S. fiscal sustainability.

No, what makes America look unreliable isn’t budget math, it’s politics. And please, let’s not have the usual declarations that both sides are at fault. Our problems are almost entirely one-sided — specifically, they’re caused by the rise of an extremist right that is prepared to create repeated crises rather than give an inch on its demands. [emphasis added]

The truth is that as far as the straight economics goes, America’s long-run fiscal problems shouldn’t be all that hard to fix. It’s true that an aging population and rising health care costs will, under current policies, push spending up faster than tax receipts. But the United States has far higher health costs than any other advanced country, and very low taxes by international standards. If we could move even part way toward international norms on both these fronts, our budget problems would be solved.

So why can’t we do that? Because we have a powerful political movement in this country that screamed “death panels” in the face of modest efforts to use Medicare funds more effectively, and preferred to risk financial catastrophe rather than agree to even a penny in additional revenues. [emphasis added]

The real question facing America, even in purely fiscal terms, isn’t whether we’ll trim a trillion here or a trillion there from deficits. It is whether the extremists now blocking any kind of responsible policy can be defeated and marginalized.

I shouldn't have to remind anyone of the name of the person who screamed 'death panels.'

Krugman's entire article is "Credibility, Chutzpah And Debt," which, by the way, contains the best definition of chutzpah I've ever read.

Tea Party Terrorists Hijacked the Economy -- Assume the Crash Position

2011-08-07T11:51:00.000-07:00

Today, David Axelrod, former White House advisor, called Standard & Poor's downgrade of long-term U.S. debt "essentially a Tea Party downgrade." On CBS' "Face the Nation," Axelrod said that the Tea Party was responsible for the failure to negotiate a $4 trillion dollar deal that may have satisfied S&P's credit analysts:

"We can debate the strength of the analysis that they [S&P] did, the history of S&P and so on," Axelrod told CBS' Bob Schieffer, of Standard & Poor's, the credit rating agency that downgraded the U.S. market from AAA to AA+ on Friday. "They made an egregious analytical error here but theirs was largely a political analysis... They want to see the kind of solution that the president has been fighting for... that will be balanced, that will include revenues, that will deal with some of our long-term issues."

"For months, the president was saying, let's get together, let's compromise," Axelrod continued. "We thought we had such an arrangement with the Speaker of the House... then he went back to his caucus; he had to yield to the most strident voices in his party. They played brinksmanship with the full faith and credit of the United States. This was the result in that."

"The fact of the matter is that this is essentially a Tea Party downgrade," he declared. "That clearly is on the backs of those who were willing to see the country default."

The death of the $4 trillion dollar deal is described in a N.Y. Times article, "Boehner Scales Back Deficit Talks, Citing Tax Increases." That article suggests that Speaker Boehner may have abandoned the $4 trillion negotiations on account of the intransigence of Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House majority leader, who is rumored to be short U.S. Treasuries, and, if he is, stands to profit from the downgrade as interest rates on U.S. bonds and notes go up.

Parties to the $4 trillion dollar negotiations knew that $4 trillion might have satisfied the rating agency. See Reuters' "S&P: Deficit cuts of $4 trillion a good start."

To understand why Republicans are afraid to increase revenues, see our post, "Never say never: How Republicans put themselves into a box," which has some information about Americans for Tax Reform and its leader, Grover Norquist. It was Norquist who once said, "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." Most Republicans have put Norquist's interests ahead of the nation's interests by signing his pledge on taxes.

Clive Crook, a senior editor at The Atlantic and a financial journalist, has written "Some Thoughts on the S&P Downgrade." Among other things, he writes about the absolute necessity of never negotiating with terrorists like those members of congress who have taken the economy hostage.

In a few hours we'll begin to see markets' view of the downgrade. Markets in Australia, Japan, Hong Kong and Korea open in a few hours, as do U.S. futures markets. Earlier today, the Tel Aviv market fell more than 6%.

Update: At 5:05 PM (Pacific), U.S. futures are down about 2%. Bloomberg's quotes on worldwide markets are here. There is a link to a story about Eric Cantor's trading in the comments.

Bone-headed luddites like Sarah Palin are wrecking the economy

2011-08-05T18:33:00.000-07:00

From The N.Y. Times:

WASHINGTON – Standard & Poor’s removed the United States government from its list of risk-free borrowers on Friday night, citing concern about the rising burden of federal debt.

The rating on the country’s long-term debt was lowered one notch, from AAA to AA+, with a negative outlook.

The ratings agency had threatened the downgrade if the government did not act to reduce the federal debt by at least $4 trillion over the next decade. Earlier this week, Congress instead passed a plan to reduce the debt by at least $2.1 trillion. ...

Interestingly, there was a $4 trillion plan, but Speaker Boehner walked out of negotiations with President Obama, because that plan included revenue increases. It's uncertain whether that plan would have assuaged Standard & Poor's concerns, but it was a lot closer to their numbers.

There are two other major credit rating agencies: Moody's reaffirmed its AAA rating this week, and Fitch is reviewing its rating. It is unclear whether S&P's downgrade will make borrowing more costly. The other agencies may now follow S&P's lead.

Treasury auctions are scheduled for next week: An auction for 13-week and 26-week bills is scheduled for the 8th, so we may get a clue on Monday, but Monday's auctions are for short-term debt. 10-year notes and 30-year bonds are scheduled on the 10th and 11th, respectively. The auctions to watch are the 10-year and 30-year auctions.

A comparison of the Tea Party with terrorists may be in order: They didn't just hijack the plane, they're shooting the passengers. The credit downgrade will affect all of us.

Update: Reuters has a more detailed story, "United States loses AAA credit rating from S&P."

Update: Salon has "S&P to the U.S: Your credit is no good: Why the Tea Party-friendly Republicans of the U.S. House own this epic humiliation."

Update: The Huffington Post has, "S&P Downgrade: Tea Party Wins Battle, Loses War."

Update: The Times of India has "Shock waves in US after S&P downgrades its credit rating."

Roseanne Barr grabs Mama Grisly's Brass Ring -- To the White House, Roseannearchists!

2011-08-05T09:05:00.000-07:00

From Slate's "Roseanne Barr Says She's Running for President:"

Last night, she [Roseanne Barr] proved that she wants a big stage for her political rantings, and she aimed a direct shot at Sarah Palin: She went on the Tonight Show and announced that she was running for president. In fact, Barr says that she said yes to a reality show because of Sarah Palin's reality show, and that she's running for President because Palin can, too. "I wanted to edge her out because I feel like she’s stealing my act anyway," Roseanne said, repeating something she told USA Today back in January.

A promise of NO TAXES!!! How will Sarah Palin and her Tea Partiers top that?

It's official: SarahPac paid for Palin family personal vacation!

2011-07-15T13:31:00.000-07:00

According to National Park Service Director John Jarvis, Palin's stop at places like Gettysburg National Military Park, during her recent "bus tour," was a "personal, family visit," according to Palin's staff. That's straight from the horse's mouth, Palin's staff!

When Piper Palin told a Time magazine reporter, “Thanks for ruining our vacation,” she wasn't kidding.

Now, it's official. According to CBS News:

While the tour was billed as a "family" trip, Palin's political action committee SaraPAC spent tens of thousands of dollars on it, according to the PAC's Thursday filing with the Federal Election Commission. As much as $13,700 was spent just on wrapping the "One Nation" bus with images of the Constitution and the American flag. The PAC also spent thousands of dollars for hotels, flights and rental cars on dates surrounding the trip. ...

... Derek Schlickeisen, a spokesperson for [Oregon Representative Earl] Blumenauer, who had "questioned whether federal resources were improperly used for Palin's "partisan, political tour," said the congressman appreciated receiving the Park Service's reply and that his office would "leave it to others to decide whether they think a family vacation paid for by a federal PAC is appropriate."

I don't know what "others" think, but I think Sarah Palin's supporters are fools for donating to SarahPac. Can't Sarah Palin afford to pay for a vacation on her own?

Anyway, we now know that the bus tour must really be over. Don't all vacations end? Like Real Americans' vacations end?

Aha! Someone sees Sarah Palin's movie and sees through her transparent playbook

2011-07-15T08:30:00.000-07:00

New York magazine writes, in "Movie Review: Sarah Palin Looks Defeatable in The Undefeated:"

Given that The Undefeated is a clamorous, two-hour political infomercial for Sarah Palin and her (to my mind, inevitable) presidential run, I have to ask: Why, since the film is scheduled to open only in Palin-friendly cities like Dallas, Oklahoma City, Kansas City, and San Diego, was it specially screened for critics like me in NYC and L.A.? My guess is that we’re looking at a twofold strategy born of desperation. First, reviews in major publications will force Palin back into the conversation of coastal “elites,” now spending all their time mulling over Michele Bachmann and her swishy homophobic husband. Second, our presumed ridicule will be red meat for Palin loyalists, paid and unpaid, who’ll be spurred to come together yet again in the face of a common enemy. ...

... This is, of course, the playbook that Palin has been using — by design or instinct or, more likely, both — since she burst onto the Wasilla scene, riling up the mob against those who oppose her decency and authenticity and the way she stands up for “ordinary workin’ folks.” ...

Yes, there is something undignifed in writing -- even reading -- about Sarah Palin. We are being used.

Some other reviews are out, today, too:

Time magazine's "The Undefeated: Her Holiness Sarah Palin;"

The Atlantic's "Sarah Palin's 'The Undefeated': Bad Propaganda, Worse Filmmaking;"

and The Atlantic's "Sarah Palin Movie Debuts to Empty Theater in Orange County."

Harry Potter gets more attention than Sarah Palin in conservative Orange County! Who could have known?

Update: MOVIE|LINE has "Empty Theaters, 0% Positive Reviews Greet Sarah Palin Documentary."

Update: The N.Y. Daily News has "In some cities, it's Bellatrix Lestrange versus... Sarah Palin."

Update: MTV has "'Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 2': The Reviews Are In!"

The last word comes from The L.A. Times' "Sarah Palin documentary 'The Undefeated' opens in Orange County; three pay to attend:"

... Right before the Palin doc at the Block started Thursday night, two giggling sisters planning on going to Disneyland in the morning arrived in Friedersdorf's theater.

"We looked online for the latest movie playing," one of the sisters told him. "But all the Harry Potters were sold out, and then we saw 'The Undefeated.' We don't even actually know what we're seeing."

Soon after the film started the sisters, like Palin when she was governor of Alaska, left early.

Never say never: How Republicans put themselves into a box

2011-07-15T06:19:00.000-07:00

Republicans aren't negotiating to solve the debt crisis.
This animated cartoon by The Washington Post's Ann Telnaes may illustrate their fate:

The difficulty for many Republicans arises from their loyalty to Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), a group headed by Grover Norquist, who once said, "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." Most Republicans have traded their responsibilites to their constituents for loyalty to Norquist and ATR. Brian Rosenberg, writing in The Minneapolis Star Tribune, had this to say about ATR and Norquist, in part:

The most powerful figure in today's Republican Party is not John Boehner or Mitch McConnell. It is not Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan. It is not even Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin.

It is, of course, Grover Norquist, the man with The Pledge.

Norquist, who has never held elected office, is the founder and president of Americans for Tax Reform, a group whose pledge not to raise taxes under any circumstances has now been signed by hundreds of Republican candidates and officials at both state and national levels.

And they do mean "any circumstances." Enormous budget deficits? No. A country at war? Nope. Famine and plague? Sorry.

Our grandmothers kidnapped and threatened with death until and unless we raise taxes, as Norquist was asked recently by Stephen Colbert? Well, answered the unflappable Norquist, we always have our memories and our photographs

(Colbert was being characteristically satiric. There appeared to be nothing satiric about the response.)

Rosenberg then asks a simple question:

Americans for Tax Reform asks every candidate for elected office on the state or federal level to make a written commitment to their constituents to "oppose and vote against all tax increases."
Every member of Congress, upon taking office, is asked to swear an oath to "well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter."

Here is my simple question: Which "pledge" takes precedence?

Brian Rosenberg is President of Macalester college, and his complete article is "Grover Norquist's anti-tax pledge undermines democracy."

After realizing what the Reublicans' no-tax pledge is doing to the country, many papers are now editorializing against dangerous, foolish pledges. An editorial in USA Today, "Our view: Candidates who sign pledges outsource their brains," about pledges in general, closes with:

Whether they come from the right or the left, these sorts of pledges are recipes for gridlock, such as the current standoff over raising the national debt ceiling. The vows stop politicians from working out compromises with colleagues who disagree with them. Isn't that how democracy is supposed to work?

Elected officials owe their allegiance to their constituents and the Constitution, not interest groups bearing pledges. The only pledge we'd like candidates to endorse is simple: Don't sign any pledges.

A Michael Gerson opinion in The Washington Post, "The danger in political pledges," states, in part:

The imposition of oaths beyond the Constitution also assumes a certain theory of representation — the belief that politicians are merely mechanisms for the expression of public sentiment. They are, in this view, computers to be pre-programmed for desired outcomes. When Edmund Burke was presented with a similar argument, he agreed that the opinions of constituents “ought to have great weight” with a representative. “But his unbiased opinion,” Burke continued, “his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living.” This exercise of judgment, he argued, is not consistent with “authoritative instructions; mandates issued, which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience.”

Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick, writing in The Washington Post, said, in part, after Republicans withdrew from talks with Vice President Biden, late last month:

It is now clear that the Republican strategy is to drive America to the brink of fiscal ruin and then argue that the only way out is to cut spending for the powerless. Taxes — a dirty word thanks to Norquist’s “no new taxes” gimmick — are made to seem beyond the pale, even as the burden of paying for our society shifts disproportionately to the middle class and working poor. It is the height of fiscal folly. It is also not who we are as a country.

It is the height of fiscal folly, because it ignores one-half of this simple equation: expenditures = X multiplied by revenues, where 'X' may be a fraction, one, or larger than one. Republican attempts to solve the problem by ignoring the right-hand side of that equation, by refusing to increase revenues, give away their ignorance and innumeracy. Many Americans know what Republican tax policy has done to our society -- they experience its effect through stagnant wages, spiraling healthcare and education costs, unemployment, and crumbling infrastructure -- even if they haven't yet connected cause and effect. Should Congress allow society to further deteriorate to satisfy a pledge to Grover Norquist?

Republicans' fealty to Norquist is a syptom of their inability to think outside the box, their lack of ideas, their inability to negotiate -- in short, their political immaturity. By surrendering their minds to Norquist, they don't have to think, don't have to debate, and don't have to compromise, anymore. They have made themselves unfit to live in a democracy.

Obama 2012 Unbeatable

2011-07-13T12:01:00.000-07:00

If fundraising prowess is any indication -- it usually is -- then President Obama is headed for re-election. From Reuters' "Obama 2012 campaign breaks cash goal, records:"

President Barack Obama raised a record-shattering $86 million for his re-election campaign from April to June, exceeding a $60 million quarterly target and easily eclipsing all Republican challengers.

Small donations drove that massive cash collection in the second quarter -- 98 percent of donations were $250 or less, with an average donation of around $69, campaign manager Jim Messina said in a video to supporters on Wednesday.

Obama's campaign said it received donations from more than 552,000 people and said it had "more grass-roots support at this point in the process than any campaign in political history."

The figures underscore just how strong an incumbent Obama is despite persistent worries among voters about the U.S. economy and unemployment and criticism from other Democrats that he has shifted right over the last few years.

"They have smashed all records," said Chris Arterton, a political management professor at George Washington University. "I think it is quite dramatic." ...

The small donor participation is especially good news.

One reason that a lot of Republicans more credible than Palin and Bachmann have announced that they won't run is that they know that is very difficult to unseat an incumbent President.

Will Rupert Murdoch's media empire suddenly collapse or slowly slither away?

2011-07-13T09:20:00.000-07:00

From CNN:

The phone-hacking scandal engulfing Rupert Murdoch's media empire intensified in the United States Wednesday as a veteran senator urged the Justice Department to investigate whether one of Murdoch's U.S.-based companies violated federal anti-bribery laws.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey, sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder asking Holder to look into concerns that News Corp. -- the parent company of Fox News -- violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, known as the FCPA. The law, enacted in 1977, makes it illegal for a U.S. person or company to pay foreign officials to obtain or retain business. ...

This is very big news and comes after two other important stories appeared this morning: "Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. drops bid for BSkyB," and "It pays to be Murdoch: Just ask the U.S. government."

As you probably know, News Corps' troubles in Britain began with public and government outrage following the disclosure that a thirteen year-old murdered girl's voicemail had been hacked by News Corps' employees.

For more information about the bribery allegations in Britain and U.S. law, see "News Corp may face US probe over bribery."

A NY Times story of this morning, "In Retreat, Murdoch Drops TV Takeover," is also informative.

Apparently, markets, too, have had it: "Hands Off News Corp. Stock as Scandal Widens."

Murdoch's News Corporation also owns Fox News, which is the subject of Senator Lautenberg's request to Attorney General Holder.

Fox News employs Sarah Palin.

Update: Talk of barring News Corp. from owning any media in Britain. From Bloomberg:

Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. (NWSA) needs to do more to atone for misdeeds at his newspapers, lawmakers said after the company dropped its bid for full control of British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc. (BSY)

Labour Party lawmaker Chris Bryant said the New York-based company should be barred from owning any media in Britain unless its non-executive directors can prove they took steps to combat practices that triggered what Prime Minister David Cameron called a “firestorm.” ...

Update: The Bancroft family regrets its sale of The Wall Street Journal to Murdoch: "Former Wall St Journal owners: 'We wouldn't have sold if we had known'."

Update: The author of "It pays to be Murdoch: Just ask the U.S. government," above, is now peeling his skin back with "How I misread News Corp's taxes: David Cay Johnston."