This photo is from The Washington Post's "Palin rewrites the rules but is that enough?" I thought a little levity was in order. I couldn't resist. She looks pregnant. Can anyone prove she isn't pregnant?
She's sure she can beat Obama: "Palin confident she could beat Obama." So why have some of the big-name Republicans -- full-term governors! -- announced that they won't run? Wouldn't they have a better chance of beating Obama than Palin?
... Palin faces a lot of challenges in a potential candidacy, says CBS News Political Correspondent Jan Crawford. On "The Early Show," Crawford said the fact Palin quit as governor is problematic even for some of her staunchest supporters.
"What does that say, kind of, about her fire in the belly to lead going forward -- whether she was able to win the presidency?" Crawford remarked. "You know, this really reminds me, though, when we're all looking at these clues, and of course people since 2008, November '08 after the election, have been wondering, 'Is Sarah Palin been going to run for president?'
"When you start seeing all these clues, it's kind of like those ink blot tests, where one person can look at all these dots and see a face and another person can look at them and see, you know, a vase. We have all these clues today that, yes, she's going to run. So it makes some people think she is. ...[emphasis added]
A rorschach test is a projective test. A lot of what people think about Palin is nothing more than a projection of their own hopes, expectations, fears and anxieties. It's how some come to think, for example, that she's a fiscal conservative when she's not.
I don't think she'll run, because I expect her to do what is in her own interest.
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.
Palin' in Progress might be a better title for this TIME cover story about Sarah Palin. It was written with the help of Rebecca Mansour, Sarah Palin's "speechwriter."
Apparently, however, Mansour isn't entirely happy with the article. About 7:00 AM PST, she tweeted, "Every other line in this TIME piece gibberish. Obama "hiring his way out of a recession." No, Palin accused him of "spending" his way out."
But GOP12 posted what it may consider to be points Palin scored with the article:
1. Palin thinks Obama is vulnerable, and she implies that she is the one to take him on. "In battleground states, he's polling at 40% or below," she notes.
2. "The country is rejecting his agenda ... My vision of America is diametrically opposed to his. He sees America as the problem. I see America as the solution."
3. Asked what she makes of Obama's presidency thus far, Palin quipped, "Two words: Jimmy Carter."
4. Asked who can beat him, she needed seven more: "Someone who can draw a sharp contrast."
The weakness of these "points" is illustrated by my ability to easily rebut them:
1. What can I say? Palin has more reason to be embarrassed by her poll numbers. For a while, after the Republicans' 1994 takeover of the House, it was thought that Bill Clinton couldn't be reelected. He was and presided over four years of prosperity and low unemployment. When he left office in 2001, he left a budget surplus to Republicans, who quickly squandered it and racked up unprecedented debt. "Sarah Palin Is 'Virtually Unelectable' " puts Palin's attempt to crow about polls into perspective.
2. Her assertion that President Obama sees America as the problem while she sees it as the solution is just another attempt to gin up some controversy. Palin's "argument" about American exceptionalism originated in a remark Obama made when responding to a reporter's question at a news conference:
Q Thank you, Mr. President. In the context of all the multilateral activity that's been going on this week -- the G20, here at NATO -- and your evident enthusiasm for multilateral frameworks, to work through multilateral frameworks, could I ask you whether you subscribe, as many of your predecessors have, to the school of American exceptionalism that sees America as uniquely qualified to lead the world, or do you have a slightly different philosophy? And if so, would you be able to elaborate on it?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism. I'm enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world. If you think about the site of this summit and what it means, I don't think America should be embarrassed to see evidence of the sacrifices of our troops, the enormous amount of resources that were put into Europe postwar, and our leadership in crafting an Alliance that ultimately led to the unification of Europe. We should take great pride in that.
And if you think of our current situation, the United States remains the largest economy in the world. We have unmatched military capability. And I think that we have a core set of values that are enshrined in our Constitution, in our body of law, in our democratic practices, in our belief in free speech and equality, that, though imperfect, are exceptional.
Now, the fact that I am very proud of my country and I think that we've got a whole lot to offer the world does not lessen my interest in recognizing the value and wonderful qualities of other countries, or recognizing that we're not always going to be right, or that other people may have good ideas, or that in order for us to work collectively, all parties have to compromise and that includes us.
And so I see no contradiction between believing that America has a continued extraordinary role in leading the world towards peace and prosperity and recognizing that that leadership is incumbent, depends on, our ability to create partnerships because we create partnerships because we can't solve these problems alone.
It's clear that Palin, who relies on a poorly informed speechwriter for her opinions, takes The President's remarks out of context to support her contention that Obama doesn't believe that America is exceptional. The deemphasized portion of the President's remarks, above, is the portion used by Palin to support her claim.
Snowbilly's post, "Strike three! You're out, Sarah Palin!," counts three other ways Sarah Palin or her ghostwriter (speechwriter?) take things out of context in a farcical attempt to buttress her opinion by citing writings that do not support her view. But, of course, Sarah Palin doesn't play by the rules -- this game doesn't have many rules -- and we aren't playing baseball; however, a little intellectual honesty isn't too much to ask.
3. In retrospect, Jimmy Carter is increasingly seen as a good president. What does Palin have to say about another one-term president, George H.W. Bush, who is respected by most Americans? He's a "blue blood."
4. Yes, there would be a stark contrast between Palin and Obama, should that race occur, and it wouldn't be favorable to Palin. Palin would pale in comparison (and contrast). That contrast has many people, even in the White House, relishing the idea of running against Palin.
The TIME article does, however, provide some insight into Palin's organization and staffing:
Like most retainers(she's a queen, if you didn't know), Palin's crew is not a team of rivals: it is devotedly, self-effacingly protective of its boss. Palin has hired some people virtually sight unseen, and yet the most important credential appears to be loyalty....
... The main gang of six — Sarah, Todd, Crawford, Mansour, Van Flein and Davis — has settled into something of a routine this year: Palin and her husband receive a daily morning briefing from Davis and Mansour via e-mail. It includes links to articles on candidates she's endorsed, what's happening inside the Beltway and around the world, and local sports news in the areas where she's traveling. The staff holds three conference calls a week —usually without Palin — but the conversation via Skype, e-mail and cell phone is continuous.
That staffing level, in terms of both quantity and quality, isn't indicative of someone seriously considering running successfully for the presidency.
Update: In the comments, Kerry noticed that TIME did an e-mail "interview" with Palin for this article. Her recent "interaction" with ABC News -- stating that she wouldn't run for RNC chair -- was also written. This information is certainly something to be filed away in long-term memory. Palin will undoubtedly claim that these are examples of "talking" with the media.
Update, Dec. 10: Chris Matthews is on the case. He asks about the e-mail interview ...
In an interview on Laura Ingraham's radio show this morning, Sarah Palin prattled on about a number of things. The host set the tone of the conversation when she stated at the outset that Republicans were out to "knee-cap" Palin and were "afraid" of her. Ingraham played a number of clips of Republicans laughing at Palin and telling her where to stay. Barbara Bush, former First Lady, told Larry King that Palin ought to "stay in Alaska."
At one point, Palin laid the blame for the economy's problems on the Bushs, who, she said, had played a role in "the economic policies that were in place that got us into these economic woeful times." Even if she was only speaking of the first President Bush, he continued the policies of his predecessor, Ronald Reagan. Of course, the second George Bush continued those policies, too -- on steroids. Handed a budget surplus by his predecessor, Bill Clinton, the adminstration of the second Bush racked-up trillions of dollars in debt and was responsible for the near collapse of the economy in 2008.
Palin talked a lot. At one point, she complained that Republicans criticizing her are trying to thwart the will of the people. That's akin to her fallacious belief that anyone criticizing her is restricting her First Amendment rights. She complained that the First Lady's interest in nutrition amounts to telling the people what to eat. It is as though Palin is completely unaware that one of the hallmarks of leadership is setting an example and encouraging people to do the right thing.
If Ingraham is a Palin supporter, she may well regret this interview.
Politico's Ben Smith has a partial transcript and audio, here. CBS has a story, too, with audio.
Here is the interview:
After listening to Sarah Palin, it isn't difficult to understand why Republicans have told her to "sit down and shut up," and now we have the matriarch of the clan telling her to "stay in Alaska."
From CBS News: Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowki told CBS News' Katie Couric today that she would not support Sarah Palin for president because Palin lacks the "leadership qualities" and "intellectual curiosity" to craft great policy.
"You know, she was my governor for two years, for just about two years there, and I don't think that she enjoyed governing," Murkowski said. "I don't think she liked to get down into the policy." The Alaska senator added that she prefers a candidate who "goes to bed at night and wakes up in the morning thinking about how we're going to deal with" important issues.
There are additional segments from the interview, at the CBS News link, above.
Senator Murkowski has gone even further than those who won't say that Palin is qualified to be President; she has flatly said that she would not support a Palin candidacy. What the Senator says about Palin's lack of interest in governing is true. If Palin were interested in anything more than the ceremonial duties of office, she would work to find solutions to the country's problems rather than continually sniping at President Obama in her quest for attention, and she would not have quit on the people of Alaska when the going got tough.
A recent Politico article described how Sarah Palin pleaded her electability at a meeting of Republicans in Florida. She told them something like, "Ronald Reagan was a 'true conservative' and was considered to be unelectable; I am a 'true conservative,' like Reagan; therefore, anyone claiming I am unelectable is wrong." Sounds logical, doesn't it?
But is a "true conservative" electable? Let history be a guide: To find a "true conservative" who ran for President, we have to go back to 1964. In that election, Barry Goldwater was trounced by Lyndon Johnson. Goldwater received only 38.5% of the popular vote; Johnson received 61.1%. As you can see on the 1964 electoral map, above, the result in the electoral college was even more lopsided.
And at a time, now, when President Obama's popularity has declined, a new CBS poll gives Palin even more bad news:
President Obama would trounce Sarah Palin in a 2012 match-up, according to a Bloomberg National Poll released today.
Fifty-one percent of respondents in the poll said they would vote for Mr. Obama if the election were held today and Palin were his GOP challenger. Just 35 percent said they would vote for Palin. Another 10 percent said they wouldn't vote at all, and 4 percent were unsure. ...
Surprise! Palin's numbers are a lot like Goldwater's final numbers. Obama's numbers aren't up to Johnson's, yet, but give it time.
Note: It's doubtful that Ronald Reagan was a "true conservative." A Conservative wouldn't have employed deficit spending like Reagan did, for example. Palin isn't like Reagan in many ways, but she claims to be a "true conservative," so, for the sake of argument, we take her at her word.
Goldwater wrote the Conservative "Bible," The Conscience of a Conservative. At that Wikipedia link, you can find a .pdf of Goldwater's book and references to other writings that illustrate how far those who now claim to be "true" or "common sense" conservatives have strayed.
CBS News has released the results of a poll conducted during the first week of October. The poll indicates that there is an enormous bump along Sarah Palin's road to the presidency, should she decide to run.
Palin's favorables are like a car that has gone off the road, rolled over, then burst into flames, and they aren't improving. CBS wrote:
Sarah Palin is viewed unfavorably by nearly 50 percent of Americans, a new CBS News poll finds, a significant challenge for her to overcome should she enter the 2012 presidential race.
Palin is viewed favorably by just 22 percent of Americans, according to the poll - including less than half (44 percent) of Republicans. Twenty-one percent of independents and 6 percent of Democrats view her favorably.
Forty-eight percent of Americans have an unfavorable view of Palin. That includes 73 percent of Democrats, 44 percent of independents and 22 percent of Republicans.
Twenty-nine percent said they are undecided or not sure how they feel about Palin, including about one in three Republicans and independents. ...
These very high unfavorables for Palin among Democrats (73%) and independents (44%) mean that she is unelectable. Electability is one of the unwritten, extra-constitutional requirements for the job.
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin appeared with conservative television personality Glenn Beck in her home state on Saturday to mark the ninth anniversary of 9/11. In what was her first major speaking event in Alaska since resigning as governor, Palin was coy about a future presidential bid.
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."
Beck was more forthright, knocking down any speculation he would run. ...
So, is she going to run? The Anchorage Daily News article, cited by CBS' article, may be a little clearer, because it quotes all of Palin's words together, rather than interspersing them with sarah-saids, and provides more context:
At Saturday night’s show Palin and Beck mocked Internet speculation that they would be making an announcement about a 2012 presidential run together. "I'd like to announce that in 2012, we will both be ... voting," Beck said.
Beck asked Palin if she was going to run. She didn’t answer, instead responding by asking him if he was going to run.
Palin said she’d make any announcement on a KWHL drive-time talk radio show.
"If there is going to be some big national announcement I’m going to do it where it’s most worthy. I’m going to do something big, even bigger then Glenn Beck. It’s going to happen on the Bob and Mark show,” Palin said.
What to make of it? I have no idea, but will speculate that Sarah meant, "If there is going to be some big national announcement, it's going to happen on the Bob and Mark show," with a couple tangential or circumstantial thoughts thrown in the middle: "I'm going to do it where it's most worthy," and "I'm going to do something big, even bigger then Glenn Beck." Sarah has been criticized for her "word salad;" what she said might have been better punctuated:
If there is going to be some big national announcement -- I’m going to do it where it’s most worthy -- I’m going to do something big, even bigger then Glenn Beck -- it’s going to happen on the Bob and Mark show.
Is it possible that Sarah has set her sights set on a career like Glenn Beck's? But bigger and better? He does make a lot more money than she does. Sarah knows that her star doesn't shine as brightly as Beck's, and she may admire and envy him: The crowd in Anchorage "welcomed Palin politely with loud applause, and then went ballistic when Beck hit the stage." Beck's entertainment career began on radio, on a morning zoo. As presidential candidates often return to their roots to announce their candidacies, so Sarah may return to hers to announce ... what?
The entire country is interested in Alaska's primary for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate. A tea partier, Joe Miller, primaried an incumbent Republican, Lisa Murkowski, and may win the nomination. The race is close and will be decided by absentee ballots, which may not be counted for another two weeks. Of course, another thing driving the attention is that Sarah Palin endorsed Joe Miller. CBS' Bob Schieffer had Joe Miller on "Face The Nation," this morning, and he seemed skeptical that Miller could win the general election:
During the interview, Miller brought up the idea of a land-for-cash swap:
"I think Alaska ranks about second per capita of the amount of federal dollars that come in to the state," host Bob Schieffer said. [According to statistics by the Brookings Institution, for FY 2008 Alaska received $2,574.68 in Federal dollars per capita, behind only Vermont and the District of Columbia.]
"You've said that we can't afford all that federal money that's pouring into Alaska. Should Alaska get less money from the federal government?" Schieffer asked.
"I don't think anybody can [claim] - sitting at $13.3 trillion in absolute debt, by some estimates $130 trillion in future unfunded obligations - that we are in any way in a good financial state," Miller said.
"The answer to this is to basically transfer the responsibilities and power of government back to the states and the people. That is really the only answer, I think, out of this crisis," Miller said.[emphasis added]
"As we continue to tighten our belts because fiscally that's critical for the economic solvency of this nation, we also transfer it to the states more power. That means more ownership of lands. It's not a situation where you just yank the financial plug, but at the same time you're transferring over discretion over the use of the resource base," Miller said. [emphasis added]
"In this state, two-thirds of it is owned by the federal government. There really isn't a good constitutional basis for that," Miller said. "It's our position that as the money is restricted, the lands are transferred." [emphasis added]
Does Miller consider the federal dollars an entitlement?
What about the team? Isn't Alaska part of the U.S.? How would a land transfer, which amounts to a resource transfer (And to whom? Miller doesn't say.), from the federal government help the rest of the country? Isn't this a selfish position?
If Alaska's resources are as great as he seems to believe, how would the transition of ownership work? How would the state survive with raw land in exchange for federal payments? Can the resources be developed overnight?
Miller claims that there isn't a good constitutional basis for the federal government's ownership of Alaskan land; however, there may be and probably is a legal basis. States other than Alaska divided land between the state and federal government as a condition of statehood.
Update: The legal basis for federal ownership of Alaskan land is the Statehood Act which admitted Alaska. Some excerpts:
Section 4: As a compact with the United States said State and its people do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to any lands or other property not granted or confirmed to the State or its political subdivisions by or under the authority of this Act, ...
Section 5: The State of Alaska and its political subdivisions, respectively, shall have and retain title to all property, real and personal, title to which is in the Territory of Alaska or any of the subdivisions. Except as provided in section 6 hereof, the United States shall retain title to all property, real and personal, to which it has title, including public lands.[This is simply a recognition of existing title]
Section 6 of the Act describes how some land that was not owned by the state could become state owned: a) For the purposes of furthering the development of and expansion of communities, the State of Alaska is hereby granted and shall be entitled to select, within twenty-five years after the date of the admission of the State of Alaska into the Union, from lands within national forests in Alaska ... b) The State of Alaska, in addition to any other grants made in this section, is hereby granted and shall be entitled to select, within twenty-five years after the admission of Alaska into the Union, not to exceed one hundred and two million five hundred and fifty thousand acres from the public lands of the United States in Alaska ...
Joe Miller is a graduate of Yale Law.
Updater: Article IV, Section Three gives the Congress authority to admit new states: "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."
Will Joe Miller continue to claim that there is no good constitutional basis for federal land ownership in Alaska? The Constitution gave the Congress certain authority ... with which Congress wrote the Statehood Act ... The Statehood Act declares ...
... One year after leaving public office behind, defiantly stepping down as governor of Alaska to become a best-selling author and a television celebrity, Ms. Palin has waded deeply back into electoral politics, and she plans to increase her visibility on the campaign trail after Labor Day. ...
... That she is leaving a major footprint on the 2010 midterm elections is not disputed, but less clear is whether the endorsements are rooted in an effort to amplify her image or to create a political strategy for the future. ...
But some common sense, too:
... She has delivered a few policy addresses in recent months and seemed to be moving beyond the family drama that often enveloped her.
That changed last week, when her daughter Bristol announced on the cover of Us Weekly that she was engaged to her former boyfriend, Levi Johnston, stirring a reminder of the circus-like atmosphere that accompanied the Palins’ arrival on the national scene two years ago. ...
... Fred Malek, a Republican fund-raiser who is a friend and supporter of Ms. Palin, said it would be incorrect to view her role in the midterm elections through the prism of the 2012 presidential race.
Mr. Malek said she does not seek his counsel — nor that of any other Republican establishment figure — in deciding whether to support a candidate. “She carefully watches what’s going on in the political world and makes decisions based on who she thinks deserves support,” he said.
Indeed, the endorsements provide little evidence that she is moving closer to a presidential run. A willingness to inject herself into so many primary fights and frustrate the supporters of the candidates she overlooks is a risky way of building establishment support.
In conversations with Republicans in recent months — including at a rally Ms. Palin held with Mr. McCain in Arizona, at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans and at campaign events here in Georgia — voters often give Ms. Palin high marks. But asked whether they believe she should run for president, few say yes.
Judy Pruitt, a 70-year-old retiree in Lawrenceville, said she came to see Ms. Handel partly because of the Palin endorsement. But she had a swift answer when asked if she would welcome a 2012 Palin campaign.
“I’m not sure she’s ready for the presidency,” she said. “I do like listening to her, and I respect her views on things. But I think she can have more of an impact if she’s not running. I really do.”
Indeed, from a recent CBS/NY Times poll of Tea Partiers we have: "Tea Party supporters were asked in the poll what they thought of a few notable figures. The most popular was Sarah Palin, who is viewed favorably by 66 percent of people in the movement. Only 40 percent, however, believe she would be an effective president, a smaller percentage than Republicans overall. (emphasis added)
The Times' article has a graphic, Sarah Palin's 2010 Choices. There you can see that she has endorsed in 20 congressional districts with contested Republican primaries. There are an additional 8 House endorsements in districts without a primary, and in 5 of those she has endorsed the incumbent. Palin has made 28 House endorsements, about 6.5% of House seats. She has made easy choices with those endorsements: 19 in open seats that a newcomer might hope to win. (Jean Schmidt of Ohio's 2nd district is Palin's only endorsement of an incumbent facing a primary.) Palin may be hoping that if Republicans become the majority party in The House and if enough of the candidates she has endorsed can be thought to have tipped the scales, then it might be spun: Sarah Palin took back our House of Representatives.
She's an opportunist. Don't forget to vote.
Update: The graphic's "Would face Incumbent Democrat" column needs to be considered, and it's easy to miscount: some of her endorsed candidates aren't facing a primary, some are. Anyway, a strikeout has been applied to the post. See the comments.
USA Today has a concise summary of the endorsement news in Georgia's gubernatorial race:
Two leading GOP conservatives, Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, back different horses in Georgia's crowded gubernatorial primary. In the Democratic contest, former president Bill Clinton dissed the front-runner.
In the Democratic primary, Clinton endorsed Attorney General Thurbert Baker for governor over the favorite (and former governor) Roy Barnes. Baker seeks to become Georgia's first black governor. The Associated Press notes that Baker endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton for president in 2008 while Barnes backed John Edwards.
Interestingly, Palin has endorsed a candidate who, according to her opponent, John Oxedine, the state's insurance commissioner and front-runner on the Republican side, "... gave almost a half-million dollars to an abortion provider. And supported tax-payer benefits for gay couples. Sounds like a liberal Democrat. It's the Karen Handel you didn't know" (CNN's Political Ticker via IM).
The Georgia primary will be held on July 20th, and a runoff is scheduled for August 10 if none of the candidates receive more than 50% of the votes.
Esquire's Politics blog addresses the hoopla over SarahPAC's recent quarterly report, noting:
Winning the GOP candidacy in 2012 will take more than stardom, and more than money. It'll take strategy, alliances, and one heckuva lot of shoe leather. Especially in Iowa and New Hampshire. I won't hazard a guess as to who will emerge victorious. I will predict it won't be be Palin or Romeny [sic], the presumptive frontrunners today. They've both tried and failed on the national stage before. Neither is a new face. And for Palin specifically, the same idiosyncratic tactics she uses to woo the far-right make her, I and others think, uniquely unlikely to be able to mount a successful party-wide candidacy. As for Mitt, Charlie Pierce has some new thoughts. Meantime, money talks.
ABC News has reported that Sarah Palin has assailed a resolution passed by the NAACP at its annual convention:
The NAACP's resolution condemning what it calls racist elements within the Tea Party is drawing fire from top Tea Party supporters, including Sarah Palin, as the civil rights group's president insists the party needs to "expel racists from the ranks."
"For more than a year we've watched as Tea Party members have called congressmen the N-word, have called congressmen the F-word. We see them carry racist signs and whenever it happens, the membership tries to shirk responsibility," NAACP President Ben Jealous said in an interview with ABC News. "If the Tea Party wants to be respected and wants to be part of the mainstream in this country, they have to take responsibility."
... Former Alaska Gov. Palin, a vocal advocate of the Tea Party movement, jumped into the heated race debate Monday night, assailing the NAACP resolution as an example of "typical divisive politics that is so absolutely unnecessary."
"The Tea Party movement is a beautiful movement, full of diverse people, diverse backgrounds," Palin said on Fox News' "Hannity." "It's very unfortunate that they are taking this tactic because it's a false accusation that Tea Party Americans are racist. Any good American hates racism. We don't stand for it. It is unacceptable."
Palin in turn called on President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama to "repudiate" the resolution and "set the record straight." ...
Michelle Obama delivered the keynote address at the NAACP's annual convention. She appeared before the resolution, which was widely expected to be approved, was voted upon.
Kansas City's ABC affilliate, KMBC, reported about the NAACP's resolution, which condemned racist elements within the tea party:
KMBC's Marcus Moore reported that Benjamin Jealous' speech on the third day of the national convention told members that the country's top priority should be creating new jobs.
"Getting our priorities back right-side up means putting America back to work," said Jealous.
Moore reported that Jealous then turned his attention to the national tea party movement and called out its leaders.
"Expel the bigots and racists in your ranks or take the responsibility for them and their actions," Jealous said.
Moore reported that Jealous spoke to tea party members and said some have taken things too far.
"We will no longer allow you to hide like cowards and hide behind signs that say 'Lynch Our President' or anyone else," Jealous said.
Jealous even mentioned the tea party's most well-known figure, Sarah Palin.
"Sarah Palin says, 'Let's party like it's 1776.' My white daddy would say be careful what you wish for because the 18th century, Sarah, wasn't good for anybody, even folks like you," Jealous said.
Isn't Sarah Palin lying about the Tea Party? Is it "a beautiful movement, full of diverse people, diverse backgrounds?" A CBS/NY Times poll found that it isn't so diverse, when compared with Real America:
Finally, something that cannot go without mentioning: David Weigel has a guest post at Andrew Sullivans' place. It's about Trig Palin's birth. I may address Weigel's post in the comments.
Pit Bulls and Mama Grizzlies aren't good enough? Sarah's now saying, "Look out Washington because there’s a whole stampede of pink elephants crossin the line, and the ETA, stampeding through, is November 2nd 2010."(emphasis added)
Dumbo, starring in a 1941 Disney film, drinks water spiked with champagne and hallucinates:
Sarah's "Look out Washington..." is from a transcript of SarahPAC's new video, "Mama Grizzlies." You can see the video and read the transcript at The Mudflats' "SarahPAC Video Post-Mortem." Greg Sargent's blog at The Washington Post has the video, too, and he may be taking it too seriously. CBS has a story, which relates the video to the rise of "conservative feminism," which is an oxymoron, like "a cruel kindness." IM notes that some moms, like Sarah Palin, may not know everything, and in the same post has news that the RNC doesn't believe Palin will be a player in the party's future.
Did you sing along with "Pink Elephants On Parade?"
Last night, Keith Olbermann mentioned Politico's poll of April 15, which found that tea partiers are divided into two camps: Libertarian and Conservative. Politico's write-up of the poll said,
The [poll] results [...] suggest a distinct fault line that runs through the tea party activist base, characterized by two wings led by the politicians who ranked highest when respondents were asked who “best exemplifies the goals of the tea party movement” — former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), a former GOP presidential candidate.
Palin, who topped the list with 15 percent, speaks for the 43 percent of those polled expressing the distinctly conservative view that government does too much, while also saying that it needs to promote traditional values.
Paul’s thinking is reflected by an almost identical 42 percent who said government does too much but should not try to promote any particular set of values — the hallmarks of libertarians. He came in second to Palin with 12 percent.
The opinion of Sarah Palin and her supporters, that government does too much, but should promote "traditional values" is contradictory.
The "traditional values" that Sarah Palin and her supporters want government to promote are extreme, fundamentalist Christian values. Palin recently attacked separation of church and state when she spoke at an evangelical Christian conference (the Women of Joy conference in Louisville, Ky.), where she claimed that the founders were "true believers" and that the country is a Christian nation. Watch the "Countdown" video, below, to get an inkling of how mixed-up Sarah Palin is about the founders' beliefs.
While she was governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin went out of her way to blur the line between church and state. From an article in Anchorage's Daily News: [emphasis added]
Gov. Sarah Palin used state funds in June when she traveled from Juneau to Wasilla to speak to graduating evangelical students and urge them to fan out through Alaska "to make sure God's will be done here."
State records show that Palin submitted a travel authorization for a quick round-trip visit to attend the June 8 graduation of the Master's Commission program at the Wasilla Assembly of God, the church where she was baptized at age 12. ...
The records show Palin flew from Juneau on Saturday, June 7. She returned to Juneau that Monday afternoon. The plane tickets cost the state $519.50, and she claimed an additional $120 for meals and other expenses. ...
... In her eight-minute remarks, delivered without notes except when she read a brief passage from the New Testament Book of Ephesians, she melded the issues of governance with a call to bringing Alaskans to God.
"What I need to do is strike a deal with you guys as you go out throughout Alaska -- I can do my part in doing things like working really, really hard to get a natural gas pipeline." Palin said. "Pray about that also. I think God's will has to be done, in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that. But I can do my job there, in developing our natural resources, and doing things like getting the roads paved, making sure our troopers have their cop cars and their uniforms and their guns, and making sure our public schools are funded.
"But really, all of that stuff doesn't do any good if the people of Alaska's hearts isn't right with God. And that's going to be your job," she said. "As I'm doing my job, let's strike this deal. Your job is going to be: to be out there, reaching the people, (the) hurting people throughout Alaska, and we can work together to make sure God's will be done here."
It's clear from her remarks that Sarah Palin presumes to know what the will of God is with respect to the pipeline. Sarah Palin believed that her work as governor was of no avail unless the hearts of Alaskans were right with God.
It's clear that Sarah Palin makes no distinction between church and state.
This photo is from The Washington Post's "Palin rewrites the rules but is that enough?" I thought a little levity was in order. I couldn't resist. She looks pregnant. Can anyone prove she isn't pregnant?
Posts
