Nicolle Wallace, who worked with Sarah Palin during the 2008 campaign, and Mark Halperin, who co-authored the bestseller Game Change, talked about Sarah Palin on this morning's "Morning Joe":
Wallace talked very frankly about Palin, saying that her nature is "very cynical," "very prickly." Wallace thinks Republicans aren't going to man up, like Joe Scarborough implored them to do, yesterday, unless Palin gets close to the Republian nomination, when they may talk, she says, about some of Sarah Palin's "more troubling deficiencies."
Meanwhile, Wallace's view is that Sarah Palin will undo herself. And she is doing just that!
The Huffington Post's Nick Wing has a writeup, here.
Joe Scarborough, host of MSNBC's "Morning Joe," wrote:
Republicans have a problem. The most-talked-about figure in the GOP is a reality show star who cannot be elected. And yet the same leaders who fret that Sarah Palin could devastate their party in 2012 are too scared to say in public what they all complain about in private. ...
... What man or mouse with a fully functioning human brain and a résumé as thin as Palin’s would flirt with a presidential run? ...
... Still, Palin is undeterred, charging ahead maniacally while declaring her intention to run for the top office in the land if “nobody else will.” Adding audacity to this dopey dream is that Palin can’t stop herself from taking swings at Republican giants. In the past month alone, she has mocked Ronald Reagan’s credentials, dismissed George H.W. and Barbara Bush as arrogant “blue bloods” and blamed George W. Bush for wrecking the economy.
Wow. That’ll win ’em over in Iowa.
One can only guess what comes next on Palin’s bizarre road show. ...
Scarborough is a Republican. In this short video, after comparing Republicans' silence about Sarah Palin with their silence about George W. Bush, he tells palinbots not to waste their time e-mailing him about it!
Everything Scarborough wrote can be read here, in his opinion piece at Politico. Near its conclusion, he writes:
[I am] one Republican who would prefer that the former half-term governor promote her reality shows and hawk her books without demeaning the reputations of Presidents Reagan and Bush. These great men dedicated their lives to public service and are too good to be fodder for her gaudy circus sideshow.
Of course, there are other reasons for opposing Palin. But if Republicans have their own reasons, why should we discourage them? Politics makes strange bedfellows.
Scarborough criticises Palin for blaming the Bushes for the economy's problems and for calling them blue bloods. Palin's criticism of the Bushes occurred during her recent interview on Laura Ingraham's radio show. We have a post about that interview, here. Palin may have criticised the Bushes in an attempt to get even with them after former First Lady Barbara Bush told Larry King that Palin ought to "stay in Alaska."
Warning: Scarborough is a card carrying Republican. He praises Republicans -- well, most of them -- and criticizes Democrats. If you're a card carrying Democrat, some of what he wrote may offend you.
The author of a blistering Vanity Fair article on Sarah Palin says his attempt at a positive piece went so awry, he couldn't even include all the bad stuff he found out.
"The worst stuff isn't even in there," Michael Joseph Gross said on MSNBC.
"I couldn't believe these stories either when I first heard them, and I started this story with a prejudice in her favor. I have a lot in common with this woman." ...
... You can read the Vanity Fair article yourself and draw your own conclusions, but he paints Palin as an abusive, combative figure with an extreme ability to lie.
"This is a person for whom there is no topic too small to lie about," he said of the ex-Alaska Governor and mother of Bristol Palin. "She lies about everything."
Meghan McCain has nothing on this. As for Palin's political future?
"If we decide to let her keep lying and getting away with it, she's gonna still be around," he said. "But if we start returning to the standard that a politician has to talk with people, and a politician has to tell the truth, then she's outta here."
In The Washington Post's "A limp response from Palin," Ruth Marcus, while she says, "As it happens, I think Palin had a legitimate beef with the Vanity Fair piece. It was very short on identified sources. You could hear a lot of axes being ground in the background," criticizes Palin's response:
... There are sexist aspects to the commentary about Palin, as with other female politicians. Sometimes sexism is imagined or overplayed; sometimes it is real and deserves to be called out. A new campaign, Name It, Change It, has been launched to expose such episodes.
Fine, but women politicians have to keep to the high road if they don't want men making fun of their high heels. Impotent and limp? No male politician accused a female reporter of being hormonal or frigid.
Governor, there were any number of other adjectives you could have used. You didn't need to go there -- and you shouldn't have.
Doesn't Palin's response to the article confirm one of the article's major points? That Sarah Palin has a foul temper?
Posts
