Sarah Palin Alienated Republicans

Salon's Steve Kornacki begins his "Sarah Palin may actually run. So what?" with

At any point in 2009 or 2010, news that Sarah Palin was taking "concrete steps" toward launching a presidential campaign would have sent the political world into an absolute frenzy, with Democrats rejoicing, Republican leaders panicking, and cable news channels shifting into "all Sarah, all the time" overdrive.

But things are a little different now, and while a report in Thursday's New York Times that Palin is sending fresh and unmistakable signals that she may join the GOP's 2012 field is certainly generating conversation, this hardly feels like the earth-shattering, campaign-altering development we once assumed it would be.

What's changed? ...

Kornacki argues that Palin has alienated many in the Republican party, and he links to a lot of supporting material.

Republicans may have realized they had a problem when Palin (correctly) blamed the Bushes (and implicitly Ronald Reagan) for wrecking the economy.

Sarah Palin Under Pressure to Make Up Her Mind

Now, no wise cracking that Sarah doesn't have a mind to make up.

From msnbc.com's "Iowa GOP chief: 'Risky' for Palin to ignore Iowa:"

The Iowa Republican Party chairman said Thursday that if Sarah Palin seeks the presidency, she shouldn't think she can win the GOP nomination without seriously participating in the first-in-the-nation caucuses

Matthew Strawn said Iowa caucus-goers do not want to be taken for granted and that they demand to meet — and be wooed by — presidential hopefuls. He said Iowans cherish their role in asking the tough questions at town halls, coffee shops and farm co-ops — and will punish candidates who ignore them.

"I don't know why you'd want to take yourself out of the national conversation by not participating in Iowa," Strawn said, suggesting voters would sour on any nominee who ignored the state in the nominating process. "I don't think you can write off Iowa's electoral votes if you're the nominee." ...

Of course, Sarah finds it difficult to make decisions (or doesn't know what she's talking about). Salon's "Palin tries to walk back First Amendment tweet," has the most recent example:

Sarah Palin is now claiming that a tweet she sent out about First Amendment rights was misinterpreted to mean that she opposed the Supreme Court's 8-1 ruling in the Westboro Baptist Church case this week. Salon and many other outlets wrote about what appeared to be Palin's clear opposition to that ruling, which held that protesters from the fringe church could hold demonstrations outside soldiers' funerals. It seemed to be pretty clear-cut: ...

Perhaps Palin will make up her mind by May 5th. The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza writes:

... But when might we know the full scope of the field? Circle May 5 on your calendars.

That's the day of the first-in-the-south presidential debate being hosted by the South Carolina Republican Party and, more importantly for our purposes, Fox News Channel. ...

It's not yet certain that former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee will run, but if he does there may be some tension between Palin and Huckabee. He has criticized Natalie Portman's pregnancy. What must he be thinking about Bristol Palin's?

Decisions ... decisions ...

GOP: Birthers are Evil, but a Necessary Evil

Salon has quite a collection of posts and links to posts about the "birthers," those who believe that President Obama was not born in America and is, therefore, ineligible to be President. Their first post, "Karl Rove says birtherism is a White House trap," exposes Rove's desire to have it both ways, so that "Republicans who denounce birtherism don't have to take responsibility for the fact that Republicans [have] allowed it to spread far and wide:"

It is also in Rove's interest to downplay the number of birthers in the party. That poll of likely GOP primary voters that showed that a staggering 51 percent of them believe the president is a foreigner? That poll is also a liberal plot:

O'Reilly decided to rebut the PPP poll by showing the results of a CBS survey taken last year. According to this poll, 20% of Americans think Obama was born abroad and 58% think he was born in this country (the rest didn't know). Both O'Reilly and Rove seemed sanguine about this poll because, apparently, the idea that only one in five Americans is completely uninformed and another one in five cannot answer a simple question is somehow reassuring.

But as Isaac Chotiner points out, the polls do not actually contradict each other, because one is a poll of likely GOP primary voters and the other is a poll of everyone.

And, of course, Republican John Boehner, the Honorable Speaker of The House, is only pretty sure that the President is a citizen.

Birtherism has even driven one house of Arizona's legislature to introduce a bill that would require candidates for president or vice president to submit a birth certificate in order to appear on the state's ballot. And, that birth certificate must be a "long-form." What is a long-form birth certificate?

House majority leader Eric Cantor has said that he believes that Obama is a citizen, but has appeared on "Meet the Press" and "refused to call people who question Obama's citizenship "crazy," saying it's not nice to call anyone crazy."

When Sarah Palin answered questions at a recent Long Island Association event, "She said it was unwise for Republicans to keep doubts alive about the authenticity of President Obama's birth certificate and citizenship, saying: 'It’s distracting. It gets annoying. Let’s stick with what really matters.'” Isn't her statement remarkably like Rove's statement, which can be read in Salon's "Birthers" post, "We need the leaders of our party to say, 'Look, stop falling into the trap of the White House and focus on the real issues?'"

boston.com's Garrett Quinn writes, in his Less Is More column, "Birthers just won't go away:"

These recent developments provide an opening for some Republicans to confront this idiocy head on. Romney would be smart to distance himself from the birthers and their most popular candidate, Sarah Palin.

There is really a remarkable divide in how the birther and non-birther wings of the GOP view Sarah Palin. With the birthers she is a beloved figure, scoring an 83/12 favorability rating. Non-birthers are almost evenly divided on her with 47% rating her positively and 40% unfavorably.

In 2009 she walked back a comment on a radio show saying that she doesn't have a problem with Obama's birth certificate being an issue. Palin can speak from experience on this issue though as she was hounded by the spinning political compass of Andrew Sullivan over the birth certificate of her son, Trig.

Birtherism may solve a problem, however. In Hawaii, where Obama was born, a bill has been introduced that would allow anyone to buy a copy of his birth certificate for $100. It's a scheme to use birther hysteria to balance a budget.

Note: As I've re-read this post, I've become aware that it may not have a point, although it does have a purpose. It was interesting that Salon had a topic devoted to birthers, and the post provides a way to make a record of some links where some interesting information can be found. Rove's discussion with O'Reilly, in which they appear to be nonplussed that about 20% of the population is unprepared for modern life, is interesting. Jonathan Chait's post, "Bill O'Reilly and Karl Rove Fail Basic Math," written by Isaac Chotiner, was particularly interesting.

Leaked email exposes Palin/Miller rift. Given a chance to redeem himself, Miller damns Palin with faint praise.

Mudflats broke the news of Todd Palin's anger over Joe Miller's evasiveness when he was asked whether Sarah Palin is qualifed to be President:


... An irate email written by Todd Palin seems to confirm his wife’s presidential ambition, and revealed his anger at Alaska Republican Senate candidate Joe Miller. The email demands that the treasurer of SarahPAC, Tim Crawford, “hold off on any letter of support for Joe,” and came on the heels of an interview Miller gave to Neil Cavuto on Fox News Sunday. ...

The email in the first box -- from millerlaw -- comments on an email, in the second box, from Todd Palin to Joe Miller, Tim Crawford, SarahPac's treasurer, and Thomas Van Flein, attorney for Palin and Miller:

Click to enlarge (From: Gawker)

Does Todd Palin's statement, "I DON'T KNOW IF SHE IS," mean that he doesn't know whether Sarah Palin is going to run or that he doesn't know whether she is qualified to be President? Could he be expressing what he thinks Joe Miller thinks? Joe Miller didn't say, "I don't know."

Salon, from which the post's photo was taken, has a post about the email leak, as does Seattle's Post Intelligencer, whose story also tells of Joe Miller's latest attack on The Constitution: He wants to repeal the seventeenth amendment.


Update: Today, Miller damned Palin with faint praise: She's constitutionally qualified:

Ground Zero Victory Mosque to soar 5600 ft and be capped with solid gold dome!

From The UK Guardian's "'Ground Zero mosque'? America needs a reality check. Really" by Charlie Brooker:

Things seem awfully heated in America right now; so heated you could probably toast a marshmallow by jabbing it on a stick and holding it toward the Atlantic. Millions are hopping mad over the news that a bunch of triumphalist Muslim extremists are about to build a "victory mosque" slap bang in the middle of Ground Zero.

The planned "ultra-mosque" will be a staggering 5,600ft tall – more than five times higher than the tallest building on Earth – and will be capped with an immense dome of highly-polished solid gold, carefully positioned to bounce sunlight directly toward the pavement, where it will blind pedestrians and fry small dogs. The main structure will be delimited by 600 minarets, each shaped like an upraised middle finger, and housing a powerful amplifier: when synchronised, their combined sonic might will be capable of relaying the muezzin's call to prayer at such deafening volume, it will be clearly audible in the Afghan mountains, where thousands of terrorists are poised to celebrate by running around with scarves over their faces, firing AK-47s into the sky and yelling whatever the foreign word for "victory" is. ... [There is much more at the link, above.]

The cartoon appeared with today's Frank Rich op-ed in the NY Times, "How Fox Betrayed Petraeus," which referred to an important article by Salon's Justin Elliot, "How the 'ground zero mosque' fear mongering began."

Sarah Palin puts her ignorance on parade each time she spouts her peculiar view of the First Amendment

Sarah Palin has expressed the notion that criticism of what she says violates her First Amendment rights. She has done so at least once each year since 2008.

It began in the 2008 campaign, when she was criticized for speaking about then-Senator Obama's association with Reverend Wright. In "Sarah Palin speaks on the First Amendment," Glenn Greenwald wrote in Salon:

Somehow, in Sarah Palin's brain, it's a threat to the First Amendment when newspapers criticize her negative attacks on Barack Obama. This is actually so dumb that it hurts:

In a conservative radio interview that aired in Washington, D.C. Friday morning, Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin said she fears her First Amendment rights may be threatened by "attacks" from reporters who suggest she is engaging in a negative campaign against Barack Obama.

Palin told WMAL-AM that her criticism of Obama's associations, like those with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, should not be considered negative attacks. Rather, for reporters or columnists to suggest that it is going negative may constitute an attack that threatens a candidate's free speech rights under the Constitution, Palin said.

"If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations," Palin told host Chris Plante, "then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."

... The First Amendment is actually not that complicated. It can be read from start to finish in about 10 seconds. It bars the Government from abridging free speech rights. It doesn't have anything to do with whether you're free to say things without being criticized, or whether you can comment on blogs without being edited, or whether people can bar you from their private planes because they don't like what you've said.

If anything, Palin has this exactly backwards, since one thing that the First Amendment does actually guarantee is a free press. Thus, when the press criticizes a political candidate and a Governor such as Palin, that is a classic example of First Amendment rights being exercised, not abridged.

This isn't only about profound ignorance regarding our basic liberties, though it is obviously that. Palin here is also giving voice to the standard right-wing grievance instinct: that it's inherently unfair when they're criticized. And now, apparently, it's even unconstitutional.

According to Palin, what the Founders intended with the First Amendment was that political candidates for the most powerful offices in the country and Governors of states would be free to say whatever they want without being criticized in the newspapers. In the Palin worldview, the First Amendment was meant to ensure that powerful political officials such as herself would not be "attacked" in the papers. Is it even possible to imagine more breathtaking ignorance from someone holding high office and running for even higher office?

In 2009, Palin published her fictional memoir, Going Rogue. When the book was criticized by John Bitney, who disagreed with how Palin had characterized him in the book, saying, "I'm just pilloried right and left and turned into the big bad wolf here for stuff I didn't do. It's like I'm this fictional character that she's decided to make me out to be this sort of incompetent slob," Palin's attorney, Thomas Van Flein said, "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, ..." -- Anchorage Daily News.

Now, in 2010, we have Dr. Laura Schlessinger who decided to quit her radio program in order to "regain [her] first amendment rights." Sarah Palin then thought -- does she think? -- she could capitalize on Dr. Laura's predicament and began Twittering her ignorance:

"Dr.Laura:don't retreat...reload! (Steps aside bc her 1st Amend.rights ceased 2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence"isn't American,not fair")."

Later she added,

"Dr.Laura=even more powerful & effective w/out the shackles, so watch out Constitutional obstructionists. And b thankful 4 her voice,America!"

There is something about this story that hasn't been widely reported:

After the N-word broadcast aired, Dr. Laura apologized for using the racial epithet. "I articulated the N-word all the way out -- more than one time," Schlessinger said. "And that was wrong. I'll say it again -- that was wrong." She said she "realized I had made a horrible mistake, and was so upset, I could not finish the show."

Is it possible? Could it be that Sarah Palin and others who claim that their First Amendment rights are being violated when their speech is criticized are remorseful? Or realize what a mistake they've made? Or what a fool they've made of themselves? But instead of admitting their mistake, they've got to throw up a "my rights are being violated" smokescreen in an attempt to divert attention from what they said. They really aren't so proud of what they said, are they?

Sarah, when you are criticized for something you have said, you can say it again! That's proof that your rights are intact. You can even say something more disgraceful, shameful and hateful if you'd like. You could even man-up -- grow some cojones? -- and apologize.

A bird is about to bite the hand that feeds it

In Steve Almond's article at Salon, we're informed:

It’s not exactly a shocker that Sarah Palin loves to tweet. Indeed, Twitter seems to have been invented expressly for the former Alaska governor, a public figure whose prodigious need for attention is matched only by her microscopic attention span. ...

... Palin has every right — even an obligation, as a possible presidential candidate — to critique Obama’s positions on vital issues such as immigration. But her tweets don’t do that. On the contrary, they offer up talking points meant to shift the focus from an honest debate of policy to public recrimination. ...

Twitter, like Facebook, is ideal for Palin, because it's a one-way medium. Is it any wonder that it's a demagogue's preferred medium?


Sarah Palin will appear with Kate Gosselin in a special episode of "Sarah Palin's Alaska." Is that going to be any different than "My Alaska" or "Your Alaska?" The show is set for eight episodes, beginning November 18th on TLC. It will be interesting to see whether Gosselin can get along with Palin well enough to be Palin's running mate in 2012. Here is a Fox story about the show.


From an LA Times article: "We examined whether money given to a [California State University, Stanislaus] charitable foundation was handled appropriately, but found no violation of law," [California Attorney General] Brown said in a statement. "However, the foundation board has agreed to make changes to improve oversight of its funds."

The LA Times' article has a picture of Sarah Palin wearing a halo and monster pearls. The same picture, credited to Debbie Noda of The Modesto Bee, can be seen here. It was used in a post on June 26th, and is one of this blog's most downloaded pictures.

Speaking of The Modesto Bee, that paper published a story about the investigation, too, and their story may be more informative than the LA Times' story.


I am not sorry that there isn't more Palin news.

Notes From The Dwindling Supply Of Sarah Palin Stories - July 22, 2010

Here, we see Sarah Palin thinking, "Darn!"

Did Sarah delete a Facebook post?

At Lizard Annex, Charles Johnson has written "Sarah Palin: Doubling Down on Bigotry."

Sarah is trying to gin-up another controversy. This one's about JournoList -- another article.

The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza seems to think that Sarah Palin has problems in New Hampshire. He linked to a front-page editorial expressing doubts about Sarah Palin.

Wow! Sarah Palin's going camping with Kate Josselin.

Here's another item: Bethenny Frankel's not too keen on a reality show for Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston.

Who knows what's in Sarah Palin's head?

Salon has posted a story from Jonathan Bernstein's blog, "What we do (and don't) know about Sarah Palin and 2012."


Bernstein begins:

Andrew Sullivan has a good roundup of some of the recent punditry about Sarah Palin and the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. I've given my position before: Anyone who thinks she has it locked up is nuts, and anyone who thinks that there's zero possibility of her winning is also nuts. But that does raise the question: What can we know now? What should we ignore? And by the way, how does the nomination process work, anyhow?

He goes on to offer five interesting thoughts about Palin/2012 and recommends ignoring anyone who claims to know what Palin will do. Then he concludes by describing the nominating process:

Now, bonus content: Presidential Nomination Process 101. I said that nominations are controlled by "party leaders." That does not mean that a handful of people sit down in a room in Washington and dictate the nomination. What it means is that quite a few people, including the leaders of party-aligned interest groups, local and state party leaders, big donors, opinion leaders, major politicians at the state and national levels, and ordinary activists, collectively try to come to a decision. The role of the voters over the last couple of decades has been three things. First, and most basically, voters ratify the decisions of party leaders. Second, in cases in which party leaders split, voters may determine the outcome. And, third, it appears that party leaders sometimes use voters in the early primaries and caucuses to test how a candidate they are considering supporting will play with the electorate. So Howard Dean failed that test in Iowa in 2004, while Barack Obama passed it in 2008. Those insiders narrow down the field during the "invisible primary" -- hey, wait, that's happening right now! That's why, for example, by the time the voters started choosing in 2008 such reasonable-on-paper candidates as Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson were reduced to asterisks; they had already been winnowed out before anyone even voted.

OK, that's what we do know. What we -- that is, what political scientists -- don't really know is which party leaders are the most influential in any one party at any one time. We're much better at figuring that sort of thing out after the fact. So there's plenty of scope for good reporting, especially over the next year or so when things are beginning to matter. Things such as the National Journal's insiders poll are helpful; campaign finance reports will start being helpful; endorsements are helpful. But it's also helpful to poke around aggressively to find out which interest group leaders are thought of as serious players and which are resting on their reputations; which state and local party people carry resources with their endorsements; which Washingtonians are really plugged in to conservative networks, and which are just repeating stale conventional wisdom. Good reporters can get to that kind of stuff as it's happening. So my advice is to pay attention to reporters and pundits who seem to know what they're talking about when it comes to the Republican Party network, and less attention to those who think they know what's in Sarah Palin's head.

Jonathan Bernstein's post originally appeared, here, in his A plain blog about politics.