Sarah Palin: Campaign Rodeo Clown - UPDATED

In Boston, during her Rolling Menace Tour, Sarah Palin was asked who Paul Revere was.



The Los Angeles Times wrote, 'Instead of saying, "Come on, everyone knows who Paul Revere, the silversmith and patriot is,"' Palin made up a story about him. She said:

“He who warned, uh, the British that they weren’t gonna be takin’ away our arms, uh, by ringin’ those bells and, um, makin’ sure as he’s ridin’ his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that, uh, we were gonna be secure and we were gonna be free.”

Greg Sargent wrote:

Everyone has already had a grand old time mocking this video of Sarah Palin bungling her Paul Revere history, but I actually think it amounts to quite an eloquent statement. It’s as eloquent an argument as anyone could make that this woman really should not be treated by any of us as anything resembling a presidential candidate until it’s absolutely necessary — which is to say, until she actually runs for president.

Sarah Palin should be treated as a comedian -- campaign comic relief, like a rodeo clown -- even if she actually runs. She'll be a huge success and will enjoy the role if she can get into self-deprecating humor.

Update: Forbes' E.D. Kain suggests, "All this leads me to believe that instead of presidential debates, what the GOP race needs is a series of Jeopardy contests, all focused on politics, economics, and American history. That would tell us much more, I’m afraid, about the candidates, than any debate ever could."

Update: Forbes' Rick Ungar strikes back at the palin-bots' feeble attempt to spin Palin's answer. Face it, 'bots: She's not only wrong, but doesn't know what most -- if not all -- American school-children know, most of whom -- if not all -- can express themselves more coherently than she can.

Update: Forbes' E.D. Kain weighs in, again, with "The Sad Defense of Sarah Palin’s Botched History."

Conservatives Weigh In on Palin/2012

The Washington Post published this fun video:


Via The Plum Line's Happy Hour Roundup

Conservatives aren't very enthusiastic about her, are they?


And the paper's Jonathan Capehart wrote in his PostPartisan column:

... Sarah Palin's latest harangue on Facebook after she got pummeled for saying the U.S. needs to stand with "our North Korean allies" shows that the turkey skin I gobbled up Thursday night is thicker than the half-term governor's.

You can read Palin's characteristically sarcastic and dismissive lash-out here. But she can't possibly survive a run for president (which I'm certain she won't do) wearing her heart and all of her paranoias on her sleeve. People already think she's not fit for the Oval Office. Such petty rhetorical tantrums are more befitting a pampered star than a president.

Capehart's opinion about whether Palin will run is like mine: non-hysterical, rational, and reality-based; of course.

Sarah Palin Misunderstands the First Amendment

The Washington Post's Greg Sargent wrote:

During the 2008 Election, Sarah Palin adopted a tragically common interpretation of the First Amendment, that her critics were violating her right to freedom of speech by criticizing her. The basic idea is that freedom of speech applies to her, but not her critics.

The American Prospect article, linked by Sargent, points out that Rush Limbaugh shares Palin's view on the First Amendment. Sarah Palin's attorney has also expressed the view that criticism of Palin violates her rights: "Going Rogue is Sarah Palin's book to set the record straight. It is her right to speak about the events that occurred in her administration and neither Mr. Bitney nor anyone else has the right to stifle that speech, ..."

As Palin Nation mob grows more transfixed, everyone else grows more disillusioned with her.

Greg Sargent, who writes the Washington Post's The Plum Line, has written about a new Pew Research poll that found more Americans than not consider a Sarah Palin endorsement of a Congressional candidate negatively. He then goes on to cite some other recent polls, which, he says, tell the larger story about a Palin presidential candidacy:

... Palin is a major draw among GOP primary voters. But the larger story here -- one that goes directly to the heart of her presidential aspirations -- is that she's successfully tightening her emotional grip on her devoted legions of supporters at the expense of just about everyone else. Far more see her as a turn-off than as a turn-on.

Palin supporters get very, very angry when you point this out. But the evidence is overwhelming at this point:

* A recent NBC/WSJ poll reached the same conclusion as today's Pew poll: It found that a majority of adults nationwide would look negatively on candidates endorsed by Palin.

* A recent Gallup poll noted a striking disconnect in public attitudes towards Palin: While her favorability rating is far higher among Republicans than that of all the other 2012 GOP contenders, she's also far and away the least liked of all the 2012 hopefuls among Americans overall.

* A recent poll of New Hampshire voters from the Dem firm Public Policy Polling found that 51 percent say they're less likely to back a Palin-endorsed candidate. Tellingly, among moderates that number jumped to 65 percent.

* Multiple other polls have found her negatives on the rise with the broader electorate.

This all supports what I've argued here before: That Palin is better off staying in her current role of celebrity quasi-candidate. This has allowed her to insulate herself from direct media cross-examination and to communicate directly to the Palin Nation mob, which is growing more transfixed. But the rest of the world continues to sour on her. It's hard to see how she'll succeed if she ever steps outside the bubble she's crafted for herself.

There's a tremendous amount of media discussion about whether Palin will run for president and about how much of a political "rock star" she has become. It's odd that the larger and arguably more important story about what she has wrought for herself never enters into the conversation.

It's interesting to read of things that make the Palin Nation mob angry. The relationship between Palin and her mob is like the relationship between a medieval queen and her knights. They feel as though Palin's honor has been besmirched whenever anyone says or writes anything about her with less than the fawning obsequiousness they believe she's entitled to. It is the negative reactions of the rest of us that fuel their ardor for their queen.

Are Sarah Palin's Pratfalls Newsworthy?

In his "Politico: Yes, Palin degrades our discourse, but she drives traffic" column at The Washington Post, Greg Sargent wrote, couching his statement in an "admission" by Politico, that "Frivolous items about Sarah Palin do degrade our discourse, but we need to do them, because the simple fact is that people click on them in droves." He was writing about Politico's article, "The Age of Rage," which, although it hardly mentioned Palin, did make some trenchant observations about political news coverage:

Obama put it best earlier this year, after Republican Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina shouted “you lie” during the president's State of the Union speech. "The easiest way to get on television right now is to be really rude,” the president told ABC News.

Indeed, at first Wilson seemed embarrassed and apologized for his outburst. But within days, Wilson and his opponent were both flooded with campaign contributions; Wilson took in more than $700,000 in the immediate aftermath of his outburst and was a guest of honor on Hannity’s show and Fox News Sunday.

It’s a well-traveled path: Flamethrowers Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) join Wilson on the list of Top 10 House fundraisers, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

At POLITICO, we have an unusual vantage point on this new reality. We are both an enabler (in the eyes of some critics) of the deterioration of political discourse, and a target of it (as we try to defend our values as neutral journalists amid constant criticism from activists who think we fail at neutrality or are disdainful of the goal in the first place).

There is some truth on both counts. Like all news sites, we are aware that conflict clicks. More traffic comes from an item on Sarah Palin’s “refudiation” faux pas than from our hundreds of stories on the complexities of health care reform or Wall Street regulation.

Sargent's post followed his recent post, "Sarah Palin plays media for chumps," which recalled another Politico story, "The Sarah Palin-media co-dependency."

I don't know what the question is, let alone the answer. Most news organizations are businesses, but so is The NY Times, which rarely runs Palin "news." Are loud-mouthed politicians rare birds in the sense that they're honestly expressing what they think and, so, worthy of a lot of coverage?

Politico states that they're driven by clicks; Sargent seems to agree and states that that is the reason stories about Sarah Palin's pratfalls need to be covered.

Palinpalooza still rollin' - how long can the wheels stay on?

Multiple Bristol/Levi + Baby shows are being shopped, according to TMZ.

Hey! They could do parodies of stories from Going Rogue! Would they cower in the car all night staring slack-jawed at some Mama Grizzly stealing food from their campsite? No! As soon as Bristol said, "Levi, I've seen this movie before," it'd be, KABOOM! Problem solved.

But Celebrity Cafe is being more cautious regarding the rumors of any show:

... No one has been able to confirm that the reality show deal even exists. Palin’s reps have yet to comment concerning such a program and Johnston’s attorney Rex Butler didn’t return phone calls for a statement.

Bravo and MTV both verified that no shows about the pair are in the works. Two nameless prominent reality-show producers said that a show about Palin and Johnston were not even being considered in the shopping stage.

One producer said, “If they prove to be bankable — and the Us Weekly cover could prove that — there could be a number of companies who want to air their story.”

These kids are entrepreneurs. Sarah should be proud of them.


Daily Beast's Mark McKinnon wrote, "She's Running!" Oh! But Jonathan Bernstein says anyone claiming to know what she'll do should be ignored. Pick your poison.


Associated Press is reporting that Palin was paid $75000 for her appearance at California State University, Stanislaus. The Los Angeles Times has a story, too.

This disclosure certainly gives organizations that might engage Palin a starting point in their negotiations with her agent, Washington Speakers Bureau. An excellent negotiating strategy would be to determine how effective a Palin appearance is. For example, an organization might ask, concerning appearances she's already made, "What percentage of the money raised was paid to Palin?" And, "What were the event's total costs, as a percentage of the money raised?" If they would do that, organizations could determine whether a Palin appearance is cost effective. It could be that more traditional fundraising techniques are more cost effective, i.e., more efficient.

For example, if the $207000 being reported is the net from the event, with Palin's fee $75000 and other expenses, assumed, $50000, then $125000 + $207000 = $332000 was raised. $207000 is only 62% efficiency ($207000/$332000). Charitable organizations with efficiencies less than 80-90% are generally considered rip-offs, because their cost of raising funds is too high.


Greg Sargent's got his ear to the ground, listening for that stampede of Pink Elephants. Today he reports on a new Gallup poll that shows Sarah Palin with a high favorability rating among Republicans, but high negative ratings among Americans overall:

... The numbers from Gallup tell the story. Palin has a whopping 76 percent favorability rating among Republicans; only 20 percent don't like her. That's significantly higher than the other GOP 2012 hopefuls.

At the same time, among all Americans, she's viewed unfavorably, 47-44. That's also significantly higher than all the other GOP 2012 hopefuls. Only nine percent of Americans don't have an opinion of Palin, while that number is in high double digits for all the others. Her situation is different than that of her rivals: They have room to expand their appeal, and she doesn't.

As Ben Smith has noted, Palin's strategy of going around the lamestream media filter has been a huge success with the Palin Nation hordes but it has failed in that she continues to grow more unpopular with everyone else. As the above numbers demonstrate, this works for her in her current role, but make it increasingly unlikely that she'll succeed if she ever sets foot outside of the bubble she's created for herself. ...

See Sargent's post for late-breaking news about why Democrats may find reason to like Palin!


It was a blogging frenzy kind of day, today, and I did three other posts! Just scroll down to read them: People are thinking of Sarah as Pat Buchanan in drag? The nerve of them! Gail Collins foresees a Palin-Johnston edition of "Dancing With the Stars." Shoot your TeeVee. Some anonymous Romney/Palin aides got into it ... Romney tweeted about their stupidity (take that, Palin-aide!).

Sarah Palin Can Win By Being Stupid! WTF?

Here, we see an eager Sarah Palin as she thinks, "Boy! You sure can fool some of the people all of the time."


Greg Sargent's WaPo blog has an interesting post, "Sarah Palin plays media for chumps." It begins with a video of Chuck Todd commenting on MSNBC's "Morning Joe:"

"I hope we don't hear from Sarah Palin about media bias anymore. Because it is amazing the ability this woman has to get media attention with as little as she does, whether it's a Twitter or a Facebook update, and she gets all this atttention."

Sargent then cites a very important article written by Politico, last year:

The dirty secret here is that news orgs hype Palin's Tweets and Facebook missives because they drive clicks and traffic, not because they're newsworthy. Just ask the editors of Politico, which recently told its readers bluntly that Palin and the media have a "symbiotic relationship," because for the media, Palin is good "for the bottom line."

And argues that the attention has been good for her:

Some have argued that the media attention lavished on Palin has actually been a negative for her, as evidenced by her dropping approval ratings. But negative media attention actually plays in her favor. It plays into the narrative she's trying to construct, in which she's a warrior for a latter-day silent majority against pointy-headed eastern elites who are trying to destroy her because she represents the values and concerns of Real America. Negative attention only helps her tighten her emotional grip on her supporters. Palin keeps up the nonstop media bashing in order to feed this narrative.

Whoa! Wait just a minute! The attention has been good for her in the sense that it solidifies her fans' support. The attention hasn't helped her with moderates, independents and democrats, all of whom she must woo in order to be elected. The moment she moves to the middle in an attempt to woo them, her base of support will crumble, and everyone else will doubt her sincerity. Everyone will say she's flip-flopped!


It is interesting, and it can be perplexing. From the perspective of someone seeking web hits, nothing could be better than Sarah Palin acting batsh*t crazy and running for President. Isn't she? What could be more entertaining and controversial?

Today the UK's Guardian ran an article "Sarah Palin's war chest points to 2012 presidential bid," in which a blogger was cited for writing,

"'She's too stupid' is what the Establishment GOP really thinks about Sarah Palin. 'Good-looking,' but a 'ditz'. This is unfertile ground, since Palin can turn the argument on a dime and say: 'They drive the country into bankruptcy, they underwrite Fannie and Freddie, they bail out Goldman Sachs, they fight wars they don't want to win, they say enforcing the immigration laws is silly and they call me stupid! I'll give you a choice: you can have their smarts or my stupidity, which one do you want?' A large number of GOP presidential primary voters will take Palin's "stupidity" in a heartbeat." [emphasis added]

Bring on the clowns!

Pink Elephants On Parade

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?"