Aha! Someone sees Sarah Palin's movie and sees through her transparent playbook

New York magazine writes, in "Movie Review: Sarah Palin Looks Defeatable in The Undefeated:"

Given that The Undefeated is a clamorous, two-hour political infomercial for Sarah Palin and her (to my mind, inevitable) presidential run, I have to ask: Why, since the film is scheduled to open only in Palin-friendly cities like Dallas, Oklahoma City, Kansas City, and San Diego, was it specially screened for critics like me in NYC and L.A.? My guess is that we’re looking at a twofold strategy born of desperation. First, reviews in major publications will force Palin back into the conversation of coastal “elites,” now spending all their time mulling over Michele Bachmann and her swishy homophobic husband. Second, our presumed ridicule will be red meat for Palin loyalists, paid and unpaid, who’ll be spurred to come together yet again in the face of a common enemy. ...

... This is, of course, the playbook that Palin has been using — by design or instinct or, more likely, both — since she burst onto the Wasilla scene, riling up the mob against those who oppose her decency and authenticity and the way she stands up for “ordinary workin’ folks.” ...

Yes, there is something undignifed in writing -- even reading -- about Sarah Palin. We are being used.

Some other reviews are out, today, too:

Time magazine's "The Undefeated: Her Holiness Sarah Palin;"

The Atlantic's "Sarah Palin's 'The Undefeated': Bad Propaganda, Worse Filmmaking;"

and The Atlantic's "Sarah Palin Movie Debuts to Empty Theater in Orange County."

Harry Potter gets more attention than Sarah Palin in conservative Orange County! Who could have known?

Update: MOVIE|LINE has "Empty Theaters, 0% Positive Reviews Greet Sarah Palin Documentary."

Update: The N.Y. Daily News has "In some cities, it's Bellatrix Lestrange versus... Sarah Palin."

Update: MTV has "'Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 2': The Reviews Are In!"

The last word comes from The L.A. Times' "Sarah Palin documentary 'The Undefeated' opens in Orange County; three pay to attend:"

... Right before the Palin doc at the Block started Thursday night, two giggling sisters planning on going to Disneyland in the morning arrived in Friedersdorf's theater.

"We looked online for the latest movie playing," one of the sisters told him. "But all the Harry Potters were sold out, and then we saw 'The Undefeated.' We don't even actually know what we're seeing."

Soon after the film started the sisters, like Palin when she was governor of Alaska, left early.

Palin too indecisive to be President

Jena McGregor, writing in The Washington Post, has this to say about Sarah Palin's feigned apparent indecision about running for President:

The bus tour has come and gone. Now, so has the movie premiere.

A flattering “documentary” (from the looks of these clips, it appears more like an infomercial) about Sarah Palin, the former Alaskan governor and one-time vice presidential nominee, had its first showing in the tiny town of Pella, Iowa on Tuesday. But despite plenty of speculation that it could “serve as a galvanizing prelude to Palin's prospective presidential campaign,” the event went off with little fanfare. Palin attended a post-premiere barbeque and had lunch at a Panera Bread restaurant with a GOP fundraiser, where politics reportedly wasn’t on the table.

Her apparent indecision whether to run or not, reports Politico, is starting to frustrate early state political players who are just ready for an answer already. (Palin told reporters Tuesday that she’s “still contemplating” the answer to “such a life-changing, relatively earth-shattering type of decision”; her daughter Bristol, meanwhile, told Fox News the same day her mother’s mind was made up.) But such perennial fence-sitting could do a lot worse than frustrate political operatives. Palin’s keep-them-guessing approach is in danger from turning what was a smart, masterful strategy for publicity into a liability of indecisiveness. ...

... Most politicians do the will-they-or-won’t-they-run dance with the press longer than they should, though Palin has turned it into a high art. This is what I don’t get—the willingness to look indecisive and, potentially, not fully committed to the job, in exchange for a little more time with your name in the news. Unless of course, getting more publicity is more of a concern to you than what voters might think of you. ...

McGregor's post is "Sarah Palin's campaign liability: From movie to bus tour to indecision?" Apparently, she reads Jonathan Capehart's columns, who has long been on to Sarah Palin's game.

Bristol Palin's statement -- On Fox! They report, we decide, right? -- that Sarah Palin has decided whether to run is newsworthy. If she had decided to run, her contract with Fox News would have already been suspended. Is she stringing Fox along? Hoping to keep that check coming a little while longer? That's not a good idea, because Fox' coverage of her candidacy could be devastating. Imagine the stories: "Sarah Palin, 2012's rodeo clown, said, '.'"

Sarah Palin is obviously not running -- of course, I may be assuming she's sane -- but if you want to keep a tiny, rapidly cooling ember of hope alive a bit longer, you may find some comfort in this post: "Sarah Palin 'will run for White House in 2012'." Peter Singleton is believed to be a volunteer, unassociated with Palin.

'Sarah Palin for President' DOA in Iowa, but valiant spin doctors persevere

Sarah Palin's Presidential campaign is in an ER, somewhere in Iowa, but Palin is headed to a book-signing in Minnesota. The speculation about whether Palin will run is on the decline, but is still good for a few dollars more.

"It is the first Iowa trip of the campaign season for Ms. Palin, which is sure to awaken speculation about her own political intentions." -- New York Times

"Ahead of today's premiere of "The Undefeated," reports swirled that the former Alaska governor and her aides were inviting prominent Republicans in the key Hawkeye state to meet with Palin after the screening at the Pella Opera House. Those reports, originally circulated by the blog Politico, were shot down late Monday by Republican operatives and Palin's political action committee." -- ABC News/Politics

"Although the Iowa trip is sure to ramp up speculation yet again that she will enter the 2012 race, all signs point to a flying visit to the Hawkeye State completely focused on the film’s premiere." -- The Daily Beast

It's said that "The Undefeated" is premiering today; however, it was shown recently to a larger audience in Minnesota, and its creator, Stephen Bannon, discussed the film with Tina Dupuy. Dupuy wrote in The Atlantic, in part:

... The final 10 minutes of the film are spent comparing Sarah Palin to Ronald Reagan. People said that Reagan was too extreme, too conservative,and that he'd never be president -- and they were all wrong, according to The Undefeated. "Why do you think I did that?" Bannon asks.

For the power of the association, I tell him. So people will think the two politicians have similar qualities. He says the tea party movement is like the Reagan Revolution. I tell him I disagree. Palin is much more like Barry Goldwater, if anything. Goldwater supporters stormed the San Francisco Republican convention in '64, lots of them "never having been involved in politics before." Just like we hear about the tea party. There was also the belief among Goldwater supporters that if there was ever a true conservative, the large bloc of dormant true conservatives would turn out to vote for him. Goldwater's opponent, Lyndon Johnson, won in a historic landslide in the '64 election. ...

When Bannon says he made the movie for me, he means women. He calls them "new agenda women." Women whom Bannon describes as being still mad about how Hillary Clinton was treated during the primaries. Yes, Steve Bannon is trying to capture the PUMA and feminist vote by rebranding Sarah Palin.

If Palin were more competent she'd be far less controversial to women. Women don't like how Palin is treated, but for some, it's not because she's criticized by the media or scrutinized -- it's because she's held to a lower standard than other politicians. If a man had given any of her answers to Katie Couric or in any of her interviews since, no one would think to make a movie highlighting all his accomplishments while being governor of one of the least populated states in the nation for a fraction of a term. It feels condescending to women who are actually smart and accomplished that Palin gets called smart and accomplished. ...

Dupuy's article is "Sarah Palin Movie Maker Wants You to Love Her Like He Does."

Sarah Palin will be in Iowa, today. Tomorrow, Sarah, Bristol Palin to sign books at Minn. mall.

Note: The "reports swirled" link in the ABC News/Politics quote, above, goes to a story about Nick Broomfield's film about Palin instead of a story about Politico's report of a Palin campaign organization in Iowa. Gryphen has a post about Broomfield's film, here.

How will Sarah Palin's successor play on SNL?

Alexandra Petri observes in "Michele Bachmann, the GOP debate and the SNL Palin factor," in part:

... Caricature tells more than portraiture about the features of a face. Look at Tina Fey’s star-making turn as Sarah Palin on “SNL.” Ideal meat for parody is someone who is funny without knowing or noticing why. That was Palin in a nutshell. Her whole selling point was not what she said but how she said it. She seldom said anything at all, so this was a good side to emphasize. You could fit most of her theses into the navel of a gnat and still have room for six caraway seeds and the social value of the exercise of looking through her e-mails. Helicopters! Wolves! Russia! She was as funny as you could be without being an actual joke. It just took Fey’s knowing delivery to push her over the edge. ...

... But what about Bachmann, whose star-making turn as The Lady With 23, Count ‘Em, 23 Foster Kids and Who’s Gonna Make Barack Obama A One-Term President, has left everyone wondering how it will play on “SNL”? ...

Will "SNL" ever be as much fun again?

Burning Toast: Sarah Palin's toxic relationship with Lyda Green

The L.A. Times is writing about Lyda Green (former Alaska State Senator) and Sarah Palin, and the Times is using Frank Bailey's e-mails to understand some of the material redacted in Palin's e-mails. In "Sarah Palin emails: Relationship with Senate president grew 'toxic'," the paper states:

... In his memoir "Blind Allegiance to Sarah Palin," former aide Frank Bailey says Palin's relationship with Green started going downhill in 2007 when Green called for an audit of a flailing state-run dairy that Palin had sought to save from closure.

"A relationship that was once cordial grew toxic,” Bailey wrote. “As a result, Green had to be dealt with. When she decided to run again for the state senate seat in late 2007, Sarah actively plotted against her, even suggesting in an email, 'Hey—Ivy even lives in [her] district come to think of it!'" referring to aide Ivy Frye. "'Never hurts to rumormonger.'" ...

... "Differences and any show of disagreement on policy dissolves into, for her, a disagreement on personality," Green said in a 2008 interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow. "And it becomes personal very quickly.”

By April 2008, Palin became convinced that Green was the one spreading rumors.

It started with a rumor that Palin's daughter Bristol was pregnant, which Palin traced back to Green’s office. (Bristol gave birth to son Tripp in late December 2008.)

"Flippin unbelievable," she wrote. "Wouldn't you think they'd be afraid of being proved wrong when they rumor around the building like that?...hopefully it'll be another reason why reporters and the public can't trust that odd group of strange people."

A week later, press aide Sharon Leighow reported to Palin: "Lyda’s office was also spreading a rumor a couple of days ago that [Chief of Staff Mike] Tibbles had a panic attack this week and [Deputy Chief of Staff Mike] Nizich had to take him home.”

"Oh flippin geez," Palin replied. "That was probably when he went to his doctor’s appt to get his [REDACTED] checked out? What is wrong with these people.”

The conflict seems to have tainted even the most uneventful of encounters between the two warring offices. ...

Seemingly, one of Lyda Green's aides assumed at one point that Sarah Palin was cooking breakfast in the capitol building. How will we ever know whether Sarah burned the toast?

This feud was a colossal waste of Alaskan taxpayer dollars. Both Green and Palin are Republicans. Remember, it was the Governor and Senate President feuding.

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?

Sarah Palin Quits CPAC a Fourth Time

ABC's The Note is reporting that Sarah Palin has declined an invitation to give the keynote address at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference. From Sarah Palin Turns Down Coveted Keynote Speaking Slot At CPAC Conference:

After skipping the popular Conservative Political Action Conference for the past three years, Sarah Palin has once again turned down the invitation of CPAC officials to address the conference this year.

CPAC organizers invited Palin to deliver the closing-night keynote speech on Saturday Feb. 12, immediately following the announcement of the results of CPAC’s annual presidential straw poll, but after several days of negotiations, she declined. ...

Officially, a "scheduling issue" prevents Palin from attending this year's conference.

2011 will mark the fourth year that Palin hasn't appeared. Last year, Palin stayed away from the conference, citing what she considered inappropriate business dealings between the American Conservative Union (ACU) and David Keene. (CPAC is a project of the ACU's foundation (the American Conservative Union Foundation) and is its largest annual conference. David Keene is Chairman of the ACU.) In 2009, Palin accepted an invitation to speak, but dropped out. In 2008, Palin dropped out at "the last minute."

This year, the Family Research Council and the Heritage Foundation are boycotting the conference, because GOProud, a gay conservative organization, is participating.

Why won't Sarah Palin go to CPAC? Perhaps there isn't a speaking fee. Or, perhaps she's not ready to face the fact that she's like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh in some respects; Beck delievered CPAC's keynote last year; Limbaugh delivered 2009's. Perhaps Palin's failure to appear is an expression of solidarity with the Family Research Council and the Heritage Foundation. Whatever the reason, she's missing the party: Michele Bachmann, Haley Barbour, Mitch Daniels, Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and John Thune, all of whom are being talked about as the Republican nominee in 2012, will be there.


Update: Politico's Ben Smith noted that SarahPAC will have a presence at the conference, so, he thinks, Palin isn't aligning herself with those boycotting because GOProud is participating; rather, Smith cites Palin's past feuding with David Keene.

Politico's Andy Barr wrote a story last year, about last year's CPAC, "Palin rebuffs CPAC, Keene," which may provide some more insight about the feud between Palin and Keene:

... Keene has criticized Palin in the conservative press, telling Newsmax in July that she was "whining" about her press coverage and was not yet ready for primetime.

"Conservatives like her, but you've got to have more than that," Keene told the outlet. "You've got to be more than a rock star. If in fact she's interested in the presidency, she has got to establish herself as someone you can envision in the Oval Office. And it's become more difficult to envision than it was at the time of the election." ...

Update: CNN's Political Ticker noted: "Palin declined similar invitations from the group in 2010 and 2009. But the decision to skip the event this year will be treated with fresh scrutiny in light of the fact she has expressed interest in running for president and nearly every other likely 2012 candidate will be there ... ."


Update: NY Times' The Caucus blog has a post, here.


Update: In "Why Palin snubbed CPAC," Politico's Andy Barr adds the boycott to Palin's feud with Keene to explain why Palin is a no-show.


Update: The Washington Post's Right Turn column is becoming skeptical about Palin.

Sarah Palin reads The National Enquirer -- Updated

Katie Couric once asked Sarah Palin what she reads. How many years has Couric's question been dogging us? More than two years. Now we know, unless someone reads to her, that Palin reads [but see the update, below] The National Enquirer, because Sarah Palin said, referring to a National Enquirer story claiming that Todd Palin had an affair with a massage therapist, "Look at this recent b.s. about Todd being all caught up in this prostitution ring in Anchorage. Heck, all they needed to do was to ask him, 'Hey, Todd, you been hanging out with hookers in Anchorage?' He'd tell the truth!"

It is good to know that Palin reads the Enquirer, but I don't know what to make of either the Enquirer's or Palin's claim. Obviously the thing to do is buy the current National Enquirer and compare its claim with what Sarah Palin and the Anchorage police department have said about the Enquirer's claim. Last night, I saw the Enquirer on a newsstand; apparently, John Travolta is a bigger draw than Sarah Palin, because he got more of the Enquirer's cover space than she did. But I didn't buy it, even though it is possible that the denials are half-truths or outright lies. Perhaps the denial depends on the definition of "hanging out," and I have no idea where Todd hangs out. I may reconsider, but I am sure that Sarah Palin is finished politically, so why bother? The National Enquirer has part of the story online, in "TODD PALIN SEX SCANDAL: ALASKA COPS ISSUE STATEMENT."

The quote from Sarah Palin was obtained from New York magazine's "Sarah Palin Encourages Enquirer to Call Her More Often," which quotes a NY Daily News article, "Todd Palin sex scandal claims: Sarah Palin calls ... 'b.s.'," which has audio of Sarah Palin's claim.

This post's photo can be found in a NY Daily News gallery, here. It is number 32 of 43 and is captioned, "During the vice presidential debate on Oct. 2, [2008], Palin had more than a few uncomfortable moments ... ."

Update: The Enquirer's article can be read here. It doesn't appear as though Sarah Palin is denying what the Enquirer claims, because the Enquirer doesn't claim that Todd Palin is involved with a prostitution ring or that he hangs out with prostitutes in Anchorage. It's possible that Sarah Palin doesn't read the Enquirer; or is she trying to get in front of a bigger story? Assuming that Palin's "denial" is true, what we have from her is a half-truth: the Enquirer's claim wasn't disputed.

President Obama needs Sarah Palin !?

Oddly, there is suddenly chatter of an iceberg that is about to wreck Sarah Palin's ship, as though an iceberg were necessary. If there ever was an iceberg, it must have melted by now. Don't worry though: Sarah Palin has effectively done herself in. She's drowning.

But in "Obama Benefits in Having Palin as His Foil," Matt Bai comes along and writes that Sarah Palin may be President Obama's best asset:

... “In our system of government, the party that does not have the presidency does not have a recognized leader,” said Mike DuHaime, a top Republican strategist. “She’s one of the very few who tries to fill the void.”

For the White House, it would seem, this is a hopeful development. That’s because every modern president, and especially one who finds himself confronting divided government, needs the kind of critic who can remind the public of why he once seemed so eminently presidential.

Think of it this way: American voters have for decades now sent their presidents to Washington in hopes of delivering some mortal blow to the status quo. Once in office, it’s hard for any president to fully embody the reform that a restive electorate may have hoped for. But it’s considerably easier if you can contrast yourself with an adversary who embodies the kind of outdated politics, ideological rigidity or divisiveness that repelled those voters in the first place. ...

... Next year, when Republicans settle on a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama will have an adversary chosen for him. But for now, he could clearly do worse than to have Ms. Palin overshadow the party’s more predictable leaders in Congress [John Boehner and Mitch McConnell]. With every controversial tweet or video, Ms. Palin makes Mr. Obama, who has often struggled to project the regality of the office, seem more like the post-partisan grownup he always intended to be.

Shortly after Mr. Obama’s speech last week, his opponent from the 2008 campaign, Senator John McCain of Arizona, issued a gracious statement thanking the president for his call for civility. Perhaps Mr. Obama wanted to thank Mr. McCain, as well — for having created the Sarah Palin phenomenon, thus giving the president’s words more resonance than they otherwise might have had.

What to do? Throw her an anchor? A rope? Both ends of the rope?

Palin and the Press: A Failing Marriage?

New York Times columnist Ross Douthat characterizes Sarah Palin's relationship with the media as a failing marriage. In "Scenes From a Marriage," he writes:

In every twisted, wretched, ruinous relationship, there are moments so grim, flare-ups so appalling, that they offer both parties a chance to step back, take inventory, and realize that it’s time — far past time, in fact — to go their separate ways.

For the American media and Sarah Palin, that kind of a moment arrived last week. ...

... The whole business felt less like an episode in American political history than a scene from a particularly toxic marriage — more “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” than “The Making of the President.” The press and Palin have been at war with each other almost from the first, but their mutual antipathy looks increasingly like co-dependency: they can’t get along, but they can’t live without each other either

For their part, the media manage to be consistently unfair to the former Alaska governor — gossipy and hostile in their reportage, hysterical and condescending in their commentary — even as they follow her every move with a fascination bordering on obsession. (MSNBC, in particular, should just change its name to “Palin 24/7” and get it over with.) When commentators aren’t denouncing her, they’re busy building up her legend — exaggerating her political acumen, overpraising her communications strategy, covering her every tweet as if she were the Viceroy of Red America, and spinning out outlandish scenarios in which she captures the White House in 2012.

Palin, meanwhile, officially despises the “lamestream” media. But press coverage — good, bad, whatever — is clearly the oxygen she craves. She supposedly hates having her privacy invaded, yet her family keeps showing up on reality TV. She thinks the political class is clueless and out-of-touch, but she can’t resist responding to its every provocation. Her public rhetoric, from “death panels” to “blood libel,” is obviously crafted to maximize coverage and controversy, and generate more heat than light. And her Twitter account reads like a constant plea for the most superficial sort of media attention.

It’s a grim spectacle on both sides, and last week’s pointless controversy was a particularly low point. So let me play the relationship counselor. To the media: Cover Sarah Palin if you want, but stop acting as if she’s the most important conservative politician in America. Stop pretending that she has a plausible path to the presidency in 2012. (She doesn’t.) Stop suggesting that she’s the front-runner for the Republican nomination. (She isn’t.) And every time you’re tempted to parse her tweets for some secret code or crucial dog whistle, stop and think, this woman has fewer Twitter followers than Ben Stiller, and then go write about something else instead. ...

Douthat divides those obsessed by Palin into Palinistas and Palinoiacs. This morning, the Times' 538 blog attempted to refine Douthat's classifications. There, Nate Silver considers Douthat's Palinistas and Palinoiacs to be people with strong opinions about Palin, and he compares the strong opinions people have about Palin with their opinions of other politicians.

Douthat's characterization of last week's controversy as "pointless" may depend on the definition of "pointless." That it continues speaks volumes. To the extent that the "controversy" was about rights and responsibilites, it was not and will never be "pointless." Sarah Palin has a right to put rifle sights over a congressional district, but should she? Some believe that with rights come responsibilites.

It's interesting that Douthat considers praise of Palin, as though she were "The Viceroy of Red America," to be unfair to her. That is a different take on her over-the-top supporters. It never occured to me that comparing Palin to Reagan (or any other president) is unfair to her. It just seemed wrong. Of course, it is unfair to her, in the sense that she isn't comparable to any president; she cannot possibly live up to the expectations created by the comparison. Sarah Palin isn't presidential, at all.

It is very gratifying to read Douthat's words on Palin's prospects and his advice to the press: "Stop pretending that she has a plausible path to the presidency in 2012. (She doesn’t.) Stop suggesting that she’s the front-runner for the Republican nomination. (She isn’t.) There are no truer words than those.

Now, for a shameless plug: Don't forget to visit our new blog, Blogging towards Bethlehem. It's about a lot of things -- whatever we find interesting -- but not about Sarah Palin, unless it's a post like this one or snowbilly's last post, just below this one, which are high altitude views of all things Palin. And it won't be non-stop comic books and films; I promise. At times a brief respite from all things Palin can be a relief.

Chris Matthews Indicts Sarah Palin: Silent, On The Lam

This clip from "Hardball" is from yesterday, before Sarah Palin's statement of this morning. Cynthia Tucker of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution had some valulable insights into Palin's problem. Did Palin do what Tucker suggested?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Sarah Palin is Defiant and Unremorseful

Sarah Palin has made a statement about last Saturday's massacre. The Facebook post is an attempt to reverse the widespread public perception that Sarah Palin's map -- with rifle sights over Congresswoman Gifford's congressional district -- was an irresponsible abuse of the First Amendment. A video accompanied the post:





Sarah Palin attempts to score a First Amendment point for a selfish reason: to save her political career. Yes, it's true that Sarah Palin has a right to target congressional districts with rifle sights, but should she? With rights come responsibilities.

Sarah Palin is defiant:

“We will not be stopped from celebrating the greatness of of our country and our foundational freedoms by those who mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinion and seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults."

At another point, Sarah Palin says that criticism of her is a "blood libel." Sarah Palin is intolerant of criticism, of differing opinion, and cries shrilly, and hurls insults. Sarah Palin hopes to muzzle a discussion of the responsibilites that come with rights. Sarah Palin hopes that you will imagine her among the victims of this massacre.

Sarah Palin's statement is an unprincipled stand on principle.

Sarah Palin's Facebook post is here, or it can be read at The Huffington Post, here.

The New York Times' The Caucus blog has "Palin Calls Criticism 'Blood Libel,'" which contains a link to some thoughtful commentary at Politico's "Palin's 'blood libel' defense fair?"

Sarah Palin Hits the Front Page

Usually, to find Palin news at Google News, one must type palin into the search box. This morning, "Palin caught in crosshairs map controversy after Tucson shootings" is on their front page.

The Washington Post article, by Dan Balz, describes how Sarah Palin got herself into this pickle and concludes with:

Palin allies point to language and imagery used by some critics on the left as evidence of a double standard. But John Weaver, a GOP strategist, said Palin is being held to a different standard precisely because she may have presidential aspirations.

"You can't put the actions of this insane person on her doorstep or anyone's doorstep," he said in Palin's defense. But, he added, "having said that, there's a difference between how people judge the conduct of a blogger and a political leader or someone who may want to run for president of the United States."

An indication of how far behind the curve many are is the article's quote of Politico's Jonathan Martin, who wrote that Palin would now have to decide "whether she wants to be Ronald Reagan or Rush Limbaugh." Sarah Palin hasn't that choice anymore, if she ever had it.

Politico's article by Jonathan Martin is here.

The Week has "Will the Arizona tragedy end Palin's presidential hopes?" which is a short roundup of opinion on the matter.

Tim Pawlenty, a possible 2012 Republican presidential candidate, said that Sarah Palin is a "remarkable leader," but that he would not have used the cross-hairs imagery used by Sarah Palin.

USA Today identifies Sarah Palin's Culpability in Tucson Massacre

From USA Today's "Our view: After Ariz. shooting, time to tone down vitriol:"

Saturday's tragedy in Arizona was unspeakable, as President Obama put it, but it was not unthinkable. American history is blighted with assassinations and attempted assassinations of prominent figures, often by disturbed young men with motives that make sense only within their twisted minds.

Combine that past with today's overheated political rhetoric and easy access to high-powered weaponry, and perhaps the only question was when, and where, the next unspeakable act would occur.

The heartbreaking answer was Jan. 8, 2011, outside a supermarket in Tucson. A 22-year-old gunman, identified as Jared Lee Loughner, opened fire with a Glock handgun, grievously wounding Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killing six others, including federal Judge John Roll and, poignantly, a 9-year-old girl learning about democracy. ...

... With speech comes responsibility, a notion that seems lost on too many players in today's hyperpartisan hothouse. Regardless of Loughner's motivations, his killing spree is a grisly reminder that deeply disturbed people are easily driven to violence, whether by their own personal demons or by others who stoke their anger. When talk-show hosts warn about using bullets if ballots don't work, or candidates speak about resorting to "Second Amendment remedies," they invite risk for the sake of ratings or political gain. As Giffords hauntingly warned in March, after Sarah Palin's political action committee targeted her congressional district using the cross hairs of a gun sight, "there are consequences" to such imagery. ...

In Congresswoman Gifford's haunting words, "there are consequences:"

We need to realize that the rhetoric, and the firing people up and ... for example, we're on Sarah Palin's targeted list, but the thing is, the way she has it depicted, we're in the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they've got to realize that there are consequences to that action ...

USA Today is the nation's largest daily print newspaper, in terms of circulation.

Oprah Winfrey Unafraid of Sarah Palin Presidential Candidacy

When asked about a possible run by Palin, Oprah Winfrey told Parade magazine:

"It does not scare me because I believe in the intelligence of the American public."

Isn't that right? I, too, still have confidence in American voters, so I'm not scared of a Palin candidacy.

Parade's article will be a cover story about Oprah Winfrey, not Sarah Palin, and it will appear Sunday. There is a story about Parade's story at Politics Daily.

Palin vs. the GOP's 'blue bloods'

The Washington Post's Colbert I. King has come out swinging against Republican blue bloods elites who are trying to discourage Sarah Palin from running. He says, among other things:

I wouldn't want to see Sarah Palin anywhere near the White House, let alone in the Oval Office with a nuclear arsenal at her disposal. That's not a likely scenario anyway, given her low standing among independents and Democrats.

But the notion of a phalanx of conservative elites - Palin called them "blue bloods" - standing between her and the GOP nomination because they perceive her as inferior in intellect and social and political standing is pure snobbery.

At bottom, their real slander is against Palin and her slice of the American electorate, captured in H.L. Mencken's caustic observation: "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

King quotes and links to several Republican writers who have slammed Palin recently. The Weekly Standard's Matt Labash has left her side; Bill Kristol bailed a couple of days ago.

Although none of this may discourage Palin, it's important because there isn't going to be anyone left to spin her pratfalls into oscar-winning performances for her. She'll have to rely exclusively on the sympathy vote.

King's article can be read here.

John Dean, White House Counsel to former President Nixon, wrote an interesting article, "Sarah Palin and the Dumbing Down of the American Presidency."

Republicans Dare Sarah Palin To Run

In the background of the very public "Republicans Hint Sarah Palin Shouldn't Run" show, something interesting is happening.

Grover "Drown the goverment in a bathtub" Norquist co-wrote an opinion piece which appeared in Politico, yesterday. He argued that Sarah Palin has a right to run. Imagine that!

Reading that, I was reminded of Sarah Palin's view of her right to speak. In a nutshell: she shouldn't be criticised, because to do so infringes her First Amendment rights. Sarah Palin may feel inhibited about putting her foot in her mouth speaking again after she's been criticised, but that's her problem. No one is infringing her rights; the proof is that she's free to repeat whatever she said. Sarah Palin's view of the First Amendment is common among commonsense conservatives. Perhaps, if they didn't trip all over themselves trying to sell bad policy, they'd feel better about speaking in public and wouldn't be vulnerable to being embarrassed by what they say. But I am digressing.

Norquist didn't endorse Palin.

Today, another article appeared in Politico. That article quotes Karl Rove: “Governor Palin ought to be confident.” “She’s got a right to run. All she’s gotta do is pay the filing fee and form a committee.” “It’s just unseemly for them [Palin and Huckabee] to say ‘They’re trying to keep me out.’ ”

Of course, Sarah Palin has a right to run. Why was it necessary for Norquist and Rove to say so?

Aren't Norquist and Rove, Rove more bluntly than Norquist, trying to tell Sarah Palin to stop whining?

As Sarah's fond of saying, "Buck up, or stay in the truck," which might be better said, "Buck up, or get out of the truck." Imagine hearing that along a lonely Alaskan highway in sub-zero weather. Seriously running for President is a journey, not an arrival.

Palin Family Circus News - Wednesday, December 1, 2010 + Bill Kristol got over his infatuation with Sarah Palin!

Why not just move the show to Wasilla? E!Online is reporting that Dancing With the Stars is eager to book Todd Palin -- Mr. Sarah Palin? -- for the show's next season. E!Online's Marc Malkin has been told so, so it must be true.


Margaret Cho is concerned that she might wake up with a moose head in her bed after writing that Bristol Palin was forced by her mom to appear on DWTS. CNN's The Marquee Blog wrote about what Margaret wrote at her own blog. While some thought an epic cat fight might erupt with Margaret and Bristol appearing together on DWTS, Margaret praised Bristol for her accomplishments on the show and slammed the haters, who were obsessed with Bristol's weight.


Don't think miracles don't happen. Bill Kristol, The Weekly Standard's Editor and for a long time one of Sarah Palin's chief spinners (Quitting is good!), is for Ryan/Odierno in 2012. That tidbit, and others, can be gleaned from Jennifer Rubin's Right Turn column, titled "The myth of Palin's frontrunner status," which appeared in today's Washington Post. Ryan is congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and Odierno is General Ray Odierno, U.S. commander in Iraq.

So, why is this circus news? Because palin-bots must be crying. They depended upon Bill Kristol. Now, once Matthew Continetti, an Associate Editor of The Weekly Standard, gives up his infatuation with Sarah, there won't be anyone left to spin Sarah Palin's pratfalls into oscar-winning performances for them.


And finally -- the coup de grâce? -- Ed Rollins, a former Reagan staffer, speaking to Sarah Palin, reprises an old line from the Bentsen/Quayle VP debate of 1988: "I knew Ronald Reagan, and you're no Ronald Reagan."

It's bedtime for Bonzo Sarah.

Republicans Need To Man Up, Take Sarah Palin Down -- Morning Joe

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.

Palin Family Circus News - Monday, November 29, 2010

Eat your hearts out, "haters!" PopEater's Rob Shuter, the guy who broke the story of Sarah Palin's lobbying to have Christine O'Donnell appear on DWTS, next season, who writes its Naughty but Nice column, has this to say:

Bristol Palin didn't technically win 'Dancing With the Stars' last week, but financially, the 20-year-old mom is paso doble-ing all the way to the bank.

"Bristol made over $345,000 from being on the show and currently is getting $35,000 for each speaking gig she does," an insider reveals to me. "Yet, all that is going to feel like pocket change if one or two of the big deals she's currently working on actually happens." ...


Barbara Walters has revealed 8 of the 10 people on her Most Fascinating People list. Sarah Palin is among them, along with the cast of "Jersey Shore." Last year, First Lady Michelle Obama was Walters' most fascinating person, despite Sarah Palin's presence on the list. In order to increase the suspense, two people on this year's list haven't yet been named. Entertainment Weekly has a story, which has a link to 2009's list.


The LA Times' "Decoding 'Sarah Palin's Alaska': Spoiled by family love" is a review of last night's episode.


Becaue it was an obtrusion, I've moved the part of the post, which was between the PopEater and Entertainment Weekly stories, to this place.