Palin's Cat Toy

The Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart tells us, again:

... The real signal that Palin isn’t running — and, thus, playing with the political press like a cat toy — was highlighted during a rhetorical victory lap by Lawrence O’Donnell on May 16, the day Donald Trump bowed out of running for president.

According to O’Donnell, the March 2 announcement by Fox News that the contributor contracts of Newt Gingrich and former senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) had been suspended because of their plans to run for president should have been the tip off. Palin and former governor Mike Huckabee (R-Ark.) were rumored then to be considering a campaign. Yet, their names were noticeably absent [from the list of suspended Fox News contributors]. ...

There is video of O'Donnell's "victory lap" at Capehart's column (link above).

Palin may be playing a very dangerous game with the political press, especially so when part of that press employs her. Is Palin stringing-along Fox?

Capehart's column also has a link to his Palin is not running for president column of April 13th.

Palin Palace Intrigue - UPDATED

The Atlantic Wire's Elspeth Reeve writes, in "Sarah Palin's Web Guru Has Some Opinions About Other Republicans:":

Rebecca Mansour is Sarah Palin's web guru, aggressive online defender, and maybe a little bit of a troll. She's somewhat elusive, and the subject of much fascination among people in the part of the Venn diagram where interests in Palin minutae, Twitter, and gossip overlap. The Atlantic Wire falls into that space, naturally, and that's why The Daily Caller's Jonathan Strong's collection of Mansour's private messages is so fascinating. She indicates her boss was planning to run for president last summer, and that she thinks Mitt Romney is a joke, a conservative blogger is a jerk, and that Bristol Palin is a little bit embarrassing. ...

The second link, above, takes you to another story by Reeve about Mansour; the third to the Daily Caller's story, which omits some of Mansour's tweets about Palin family dynamics.

Is this a story of betrayal? Does Mansour have any direct knowledge of the family dynamics?

This story reminds me of what the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza recently wrote about the fire in Palin's belly: 'We take Palin at her word that she has the requisite “fire in the belly” necessary to run. But does she have her mind wrapped around the mechanics of how (and if) she could turn intrigue over her and her family into actual votes?'

In any case, it's interesting that Reeve has used a Venn diagram to get a better understanding of someone's fans. Update: Reeve is considering people interested in Palin as a set of people. Like any set, that set may contain subsets. Reeve has identified three of those subsets: those interested in Palin minutiae, those interested in Twitter, and those interested in gossip. Reeve's "overlap" is the intersection -- in set theory terms -- of those three subsets.

Update: Mansour last tweeted on the 20th, after a tweet on the 16th. It appears as though her tweet rate has fallen dramatically.

Update: Politico's Andy Barr has written "Heat from tweets for Palin aide," which indicates that it may be some time before anyone knows whether Mansour is still a Palin aide.

Update: Politico's Ben Smith has written, "Don't talk to strangers, Palin edition," in which he tells how he was offered Mansour's tweets last fall by one "Toki de la Vega." Don't you think that he (or she) must be some sort of Spanish explorer -- conquistador? -- with a name like that?

Anyway, Smith also writes, "[W]e and most other outlets would also have printed them [the tweets] had we obtained them, as story does shed light on the inside of Palin's small circle." Did Reeve miss a subset?

Sarah Palin, The Mean and Vindictive

The Washington Post has an interesting review of Frank Bailey's book, "Blind Allegiance to Sarah Palin." The Post's article begins:

... In Palin he [Bailey] found a leader who elegantly fused faith and politics. She exuded charm, energy and idealism, and, most important, she inspired trust. Bailey was politically smitten: “In my mind, God had chosen her, and this was His will.”

But God had his own plan for Frank Bailey. The political novice spent nearly four years at Palin’s side only to wind up disillusioned by his “Ronald Reagan in high heels.” In “Blind Allegiance to Sarah Palin,” his political kiss-and-tell based on more than 50,000 Yahoo! account e-mails that he wrote or received as a campaign and administration staffer, Bailey paints a portrait of an erratic, vindictive, unethical politician. Palin emerges as a woman far more interested in power, fame and fortune than in the day-to-day grind of governing. “I am convinced,” Bailey writes, “that her priorities and personality are not only ill suited to head a political party or occupy national office, but would lead to a disaster of, well, biblical proportions.”

Bailey's book promises to be a good read and goes on sale tomorrow. More than anything else, it may paint the best portrait of Sarah Palin, the mean and vindictive. Jeanne Devon and Ken Morris, who co-authored the book with Bailey, have recently written about the book, here, and here.

I hope the book quotes Sarah Palin saying, "I hate this damn job!" The reviewer, Steven Levingston, The Post's non-fiction editor, got the impression that Palin wasn't interested in the "day-to-day grind of governing." But a governor -- or president -- has to be able to handle the executive as well as the ceremonial duties of office. We should never forget that once Wasilla hired a city manager, Palin's mayoralty became a ceremonial post, with the city manager responsible for the day-to-day grind of governing.

Sarah Palin stringing Fox along?

Gabriel Sherman has written an article "The Elephant in the Green Room," for New York magazine. The article is about Roger Ailes, the Fox News Chairman. Fox has employed several potential candidates for the 2012 Republican nomination for President, and the article briefly describes how Fox has tried to get Sarah Palin to disclose whether she is going to run.

Fox has already shown Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich the door, because they were thought to be serious about running for the nomination. As for Palin, the article states:

... [Ailes ...] had little choice but to force the hands of the candidates on his payroll. In late February, Shine [Bill Shine, the network's programming chief] made calls to Palin and her husband, Todd, to ask if she was going to run for president. The Palins told him they hadn’t decided. “I’m not sure Sarah has made up her mind one way or the other,” a Palin adviser told me. The network is working hard to get a definitive answer out of her. ...

About two weeks earlier, Huckabee had been called into a meeting with Shine and Dianne Brandy, the network's general counsel, to be quizzed about his intentions, and, apparently, the network concluded that Huckabee wasn't seriously considering a run. They kept him, and, recently, Huckabee publicly said that he wouldn't run.

If Palin were running, she would have had to have left Fox News. If she does intend to run and is stringing the network along until she announces, then she may pay a price in terms of campaign coverage. Palin's may be an unusual case, however. Ailes is said to think, "Palin is an idiot," according to a Republican close to Ailes.

The article also describes how Ailes became disillusioned with Palin.

Sarah Palin bought a house in Scottsdale?

That intrepid investigator, "Patrick," (of the Political Gates blog) who makes all sorts of claims, has now claimed:

... Arizonians should brace themselves: The Queen of Mean [apparently Sarah Palin] is coming to town, following the footsteps of daughter Bristol! To Scottsdale, Arizona, to be precise - according to a report of news outlet "azcentral" ...

But notice that what he links to asks at the outset, "Has Sarah Palin bought a house in north Scottsdale?" It never once answers the question! Patrick's assertion that Palin has in fact bought a house in Scottsdale is typical of his response to many questions about what Palin is doing, has done, or might do. He believes and asserts as fact that she does or has done whatever he expects she might do. It's known as an expectation bias. Of course, he may be right (about the house in Scottsdale). A stopped clock is right twice a day.

But what if Palin has bought that house in Scottsdale? Does it have any meaning? In Arizona, there are what are known as "snowbirds." Those are people from cold climates who vacation in Arizona during the winter. There are even smart "snowbirds:" They have a summer house in northern Arizona and a winter house in southern Arizona. There is nothing unusual about "snowbirds."

Does anyone begrudge Palin's ability to buy a million-dollar-plus house? She has said that she's operating a public speaking business and, apparently, has had some success doing that. I don't mind if Palin buys a million-dollar house, but do think that Patrick is like a guy in the street asking passers-by to fight with him. I once heard -- didn't read -- that the very definition of a psychopath is someone who fights and fucks too much.

Of course, there will be speculation -- Is that what "Patrick" is looking for? -- that Palin is "moving" to Arizona to grab John Kyl's soon-to-be-vacant senate seat or run for Congress in what may be a new district in -- gasp! -- an area in which Bristol Palin recently bought a house. Isn't something nefarious going on? Probably not. The article at The Arizona Republic's website also stated:

... The Arizona Democratic Party's website asked, "Is Sarah Palin moving to Arizona?" and used the rumors to try to raise money.

The speculation was enough for Public Policy Polling, a Democratic company based in North Carolina, to include some questions about Palin in its most recent automated telephone survey of Arizona voters. One question asked respondents whether they would like for Palin to move to Arizona. Fifty-seven percent said no. Another 27 percent said they would like her to relocate to the state, while 16 percent were not sure. ...

How would she win an election in Arizona, considering those poll numbers?

I should add, if anyone is unfamiliar with how a U.S. President is elected, that Arizona isn't a good choice for a "home state" when considering a presidential bid. It is one of the least populous states and, therefore, isn't allocated as many electoral college votes as the more populous states are. Did being Arizona's "favorite son" win the election for John McCain in 2008?

Update: The Atlantic Wire's Ujala Sehgal writes:

... [T]here are many reasons why Palin might leave Alaska that have nothing to do with a bid for 2012 or a run for a seat in the Senate. Joshua Green described in The Atlantic that Palin's popularity in her home state is rapidly dwindling. A rumored Democratic poll showed her to be less popular in Alaska right now than Barack Obama. Green writes that though Palin, "still lives in Alaska, she has all but withdrawn from its public life, appearing only seldom and then usually to film her reality-television show, Sarah Palin’s Alaska."

If Alaska "has moved on" from Palin, as Green suggests, she may very well be ready to move on from Alaska. As a public figure, no doubt it is difficult for her to fly back and forth from Alaska to appearances around the country, and Arizona would be a more convenient location. There seems to be little keeping here in state. Her son Track is still in Alaska, but he recently married his high school sweetheart, People reports. Palin may also want to keep an eye on Bristol in Maricopa. Or maybe she's just sick of the cold weather. ...

Maybe she's just sick of the cold weater, or wants to be closer to family, or would find it is easier to get to speaking engagements from Phoenix' airport. Then, too, Arizona's real-estate market is depressed at the moment and may seem to be a bargain to some.

There's a fire in Sarah Palin's belly? -- UPDATED

Sarah Palin has said that she has a fire in her belly. I don't know: Acid reflux disease, technically known as GERD, may cause heartburn and its symptoms can be mistaken for other maladies. Anyway, CBS News has a story/transcript of what Palin said about the matter when she appeared on Fox News Thursday and talked with Greta Van Susteren:

... Asked by host Greta Van Sustren if she has the "fire in the belly" for a run, the former Republican vice presidential nominee and Alaska governor responded, "that's a great question."

"I think my problem is that I do have the fire in my belly," said Palin, a Fox News contributor. "I am so adamantly supportive of the good traditional things about America and our free enterprise system and I want to make sure that America is put back on the right track and we only do that by defeating Obama in 2012. I have that fire in my belly."

"It's a matter for me of some kind of practical, pragmatic decisions that have to be made," Palin continued. "One is, with a large family, understanding the huge amount of scrutiny and the sacrifices that have to be made on my children's part in order to see their momma run for president. But yeah the fire in the belly -- it's there."

"That's kind of my problem is that it's such a roaring fire in my belly to preserve and restore all that's good about America that I struggle with that every single day," she added. ...

Palin attributes the fire to a desire to "preserve and restore all that's good about America," but doesn't tell us what has been lost and what may be lost. The story of America is a story of change. The CBS story hints that she may be bothered by a belief that America is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s.

Now, I'm not experiencing any heartburn, but think I would be if I believed nonsense like that.

The CBS story also has video of the interview and mentions that Palin's fire breathing remarks are at about the 8-minute mark.

Update: The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza, who has grown increasingly skeptical of Palin's prospects over time, concludes an interesting post with: "We take Palin at her word that she has the requisite “fire in the belly” necessary to run. But does she have her mind wrapped around the mechanics of how (and if) she could turn intrigue over her and her family into actual votes?"

Update: The NY Times' The Caucus blog has a story about whether Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann will run. It appears as though Bachmann is closer to an announcement that Palin.

Sarah Palin's Mind Game

In today's post, 'Sarah Palin: Media scrutiny next year? “I just have to be prepared for it and overcome it.” UPDATE//: Ivan Moore in Anchorage Press says “absolutely yes, Sarah will run”,' Joe McGinniss wrote of what Palin said on Sean Hannity's show, and here is a quote from McGinniss' post:

... I realize that the Wasilla Assembly of God taught Sarah that Sigmund Freud was Sigmund Fraud, and that she’s believed it ever since, but that doesn’t immunize her from what the rest of us might call a Freudian slip. Speaking of Gingrich’s recent stumble out of the gate, Hannity asked her, in regard to 2012, “Is there going to be a different standard?” Meaning: will candidates be held accountable for their words? Sarah said:

There’s gotta be the preparation on all the candidates’ parts for those gotchas. That’s what the lamestream media is known for nowadays is the gotcha, trip-up questions, and I just have to be prepared for it and overcome it. (emphasis added.)

Why would someone who did not intend to seek the Republican nomination say “I”?

If she weren’t planning to run–notwithstanding how she makes everything about herself–wouldn’t she have said “they?”

Dr. Fraud, where are you now that we need you? ...

To his credit, McGinniss doesn't seem to know what to make of it, but several commenters expressed what may be an expectation bias with comments that essentially said, "I knew it! She's going to run."

This is the problem: People can't believe that Palin is a liar, an unreliable narrator or speaks "word salad" and at the same time believe what she says, unless they're willing to embrace inconsistent ideas. Think about that!

Her statement may have been a failure to completely express a conditional or subjunctive statement, like, "If I run, I just have to be prepared for it ["gotcha, trip-up questions"] or "If I were running, I would have to be prepared for it." How can we know without asking a follow-up question?