Posts Tagged ‘2012 campaign’

Meet the new Sarah Palin: Nikki Haley of South Carolina

As Sarah’s free-fall into political irrelevance accelerates, Bachmann has already replaced her as the right-wing Republican woman who might matter in 2012. But it’s Nikki Haley (pictured with Sarah above) who threatens to erase all memories of the Wasilla Weirdo.

[By the way, thanks to commenters and others who worry that nobody will care about THE ROGUE when it is published on September 20. Worry not. My publisher, Crown, is not concerned. In fact, the people at Crown are wildly excited about the book’s prospects, and growing more so every day. THE ROGUE contains enough startling new revelations–as well as my first-person account of what it was like to live next to Sarah last summer–to assure the sort of national interest that previous books about Sarah did not achieve. Major national media attention is already guaranteed, although I’m not permitted yet to get specific.]

But think longer term: Bachmann will burn out this year and next because she’s just as dopey and as enslaved to Dominionist Christianty as is Sarah.

Obama should be so lucky as to have Bachmann as his 2012 opponent. (No, he couldn’t possibly be so lucky as to have Sarah to wipe up the floor with next year: if he did, he might win all fifty states.)

No matter who it is, he’ll be reelected. Yes, you heard it here first. No matter how short the odds, bet Obama in 2012.

Current odds from Ladbrokes in the UK:

Barack Obama
1/2
Mitt Romney
5/1
Tim Pawlenty
12/1
Rick Perry
14/1
Jon Huntsman
20/1
Michele Bachmann
20/1
Sarah Palin
33/1
Rudy Giuliani
50/1
Herman Cain
50/1
Ron Paul
66/1
Newt Gingrich
66/1
Rick Santorum
150/1
Gary Johnson
150/1
Thaddeus McCotter
150/1

If you bet $1,000 on Obama to be reelected, you’d receive $1,500 the day after election day, 2012.
That’s a fifty percent return on your money in sixteen months.

I personally, of course, do not endorse wagering in any form.

Nonetheless, you might be interested in Ladbrokes’ take on the GOP nomination:

Mitt Romney
11/8
Tim Pawlenty
4/1
Rick Perry
5/1
Michele Bachmann
7/1
Jon Huntsman
10/1
Sarah Palin
14/1
Rudy Giuliani
25/1
Herman Cain
25/1
Newt Gingrich
33/1
Ron Paul
40/1
Rick Santorum
66/1
Gary Johnson
66/1
Thaddeus McCotter
66/1

Rick Perry, who hasn’t even said he’ll run, is 5/1, while Sarah, slipping fast, is 14/1 for the nomination.

But let’s look beyond the easy money Ladbrokes is putting on the table. Let’s look to 2016, by which time Sarah will be only that bad taste you might burp up if you ate too much pizza last night.

The GOP/Tea Party/hot chick meme will still be out there. There will be no incumbent President.

Beware Nikki Haley of South Carolina. The New York Times has just anointed her as the future of the Tea Party here.

And the Haley piece was written by Kim Severson, formerly of the Anchorage Daily News.

So she knows how this stuff can happen.

HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY TO ALL WHO READ THIS BLOG AND COMMENT ON IT, AND ALSO TO ALL OF OUR TROOPS SERVING OUR NATION, BOTH HERE AND ABROAD, AND ESPECIALLY TO THOSE WOMEN AND MEN WHOSE LIVES ARE IN DANGER AS THEY SERVE IN WAR ZONES.

It’s not only Sarah Palin who cares about you.

Is Sarah Palin “A Face in the Crowd?”

More than a half-century ago–in 1957, to be exact–America was treated to (and in some quarters alarmed by) one of the finest films ever to receive commercial release in the U.S.

I’m talking about A Face in the Crowd, adapted by the great Budd Schulberg from his short story “Your Arkansas Traveler,” and produced and directed by Elia Kazan, and starring Andy Griffith, Walter Matthau and Patricia Neal.

Here’s the  IMDB plot summary:

An Arkansas hobo becomes an overnight media sensation. But as he becomes drunk with fame and power, will he ever be exposed as the fraud he has become?

I first saw A Face in the Crowd as a teenager.  It made such an impression that more than fifty years later, as I was considering whether to write a book about Sarah Palin, I watched it again.  In the context of Palin, it resonated even longer and louder the second time around.

Whether or not you plan to see Sarah’s million-dollar epic to be released in June, I urge you to watch A Face in the Crowd.

Once you do, I suspect you won’t find it quite so easy to ridicule Sarah Palin as an ignorant moron who can’t possibly harm us.

 

 

 

Why Is This Not A Surprise?

The poorer and less educated you are, the more likely you are to like Sarah.

More from Andrew Sullivan Soon: UPDATE: He’s Delivered…

He writes today: “I’ve been struggling to write a long new post on this entire thing, and am almost happy with it.”

I can say this about Andrew: he recognized from the start that the combination of Sarah Palin and the bedazzled media’s failure
to expose her for the fraud she was and is represented a genuine and grave threat to democracy. At the time, the 2008 election result was far from certain. In her Christian dominionism, her ignorance, her willfulness, her petulance, her spitefulness and her unbalanced belief that God really had annointed her to impose her narrow view of Christianity on a sinful, secular nation, Palin posed a clear and present danger to our way of life.

And we are by no means out of those woods yet. I have no doubt that she is currently preparing for a Fall Offensive that she thinks will carry her into next year’s primaries on a wave of fresh momentum. Given the weakness of the GOP field (Donald Trump?!!) , she could still become the Republican candidate.

The campaign that would follow that calamity would tear this country apart as maybe nothing has done since the Civil War.

So be grateful that Andrew Sullivan is standing watch.

UPDATE

…and many won’t like what he says.

From the start, Andrew has made an effort to be scrupulously fair about the Trig question. For being willing to consider even the possibility that Sarah’s story was a hoax, he was derided. Today’s post is further evidence of his scrupulousness, and although I disagree with him about many things (he is a Republican, after all) I’ve never found him to argue from false premises.

However, I’m less persuaded than he is by the belated first-person accounts of Quinn and Loy.

Loy wrote the original ADN story that said what a shock it was to learn that Sarah was pregnant, because she never looked it.
Now, three years later, he suddenly remembers that, yeah, actually, she did look pregnant, I just didn’t notice it at the time? A good cross-examiner could have fun with that in a courtroom.

As for Quinn, it was widely rumored that he was romantically involved with Palin aide Ivy Frye while covering Sarah as governor for AP. He doesn’t work for AP any more. I don’t know why, but I’ve heard the story of his relationship with Fry often enough and from enough different people without axes to grind that, at the least, it gives me pause in regard to Quinn’s credibility.

But set aside questions about the motivation of these two, suddnly key “eyewitnesses,” who decided in unison to go public last week. As all cops, prosecutors and defense attorneys know, eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. How about eyewitness testimony three years later?

I’m a Trignostic. I don’t have a dog in this fight. But I don’t agree with Sullivan that the “recovered memories” of Loy and Quinn (neither of whom I know, by the way) should be accepted as having significant weight.

Not only is eyewitness testimony unreliable, but these were young male reporters covering the most dazzling & sexy political figure in Alaskan history. Sarah invites them to view her (veiled) belly in private? And now–contradicting what they wrote at the time–they both decide retroactively that she was obviously pregnant?

Something about that smells like fish to me: and not like fish that even Todd Palin could sell commercially.

Sullivan says the Loy and Quinn accounts “buttress–powerfully–the case that this whole thing is a tempest in a spatula.” He finds Loy and Quinn “persuasive.” I don’t.

He’s also persuaded by this conversation that Laura Novak had with a pediatric specialist, who argues that Sarah Palin is not “weird” enough to have fabricated her whole story.

Hmm. I’m not so sure. That reminds me of the argument that friends of Jeffrey MacDonald made in his defense: he couldn’t have murdered his wife and children, because he’s not the kind of man who could have done that. Turns out that he did, and he was. So a long-distance psychological evaluation of Sarah by a pediatric specialist who’s never met her doesn’t rise to the level of evidence either.

My verdict? Jury still out. But we thank Mr. Sullivan for his testimony.

Fight Like a Girl

At the anti-labor Tea Party rally in Madison yesterday, Sarah said, “The 2012 elections begin here.”
The words of a non-candidate? Washington Times doesn’t think so.

They say her “rip-roaring…pep talk reminds why she would be a formidable candidate,” and that her
“charisma, authentic ‘woman of the people’ quality and common-sense, family-oriented conservatism”
could carry her “a lot of the way” to the White House.

All who have contempt for her can sit around the campfire and deride her.
But there is another America out there, thrilled and energized by what the Washington Times
calls her “weekend tour de force” in Wisconsin.

And then there is Sarah herself. No accident that she used the phrase, “Fight like a girl.”
It’s a Bomshel song that says:

“Hold your head high.
Don’t ever let them define
The light in your eyes.
Love yourself, give ’em Hell.
You can take on this world.
You just stand and be strong
And then fight
Like a girl.

“Oh, with style and grace
Kick ass and take names…”

Not all of us would agree that Sarah is doing it with “style and grace,” but it would be naive
to think that she doesn’t still intend to “kick ass and take names.”

She’s already taken mine. I wonder if she knows how to spell it.

Is Sarah Palin at the Tipping Point?

Chris Cilizza, who writes The Fix at the Washington Post, is one of the most reliable purveyors of the political conventional wisdom of the moment.  He writes today that Sarah “may have peaked, politically speaking.”  He cites recent polls as evidence of “Palin fatigue” among Republicans and says the most likely reason for the dimming of Sarah’s star was her churlish and ill-advised response to the Tuscon shootings in January.

Even my friend Geoffrey Dunn (his book, The Lies of  Sarah Palin, will be published next month) now puts the likelihood of Sarah running for president at only fifty-fifty.

I disagree.  There is a natural ebb and flow in the tides of politics, and not even Sarah (or maybe especially not Sarah) can always be at high tide.  The primaries are still almost a year away.  She stumbled badly with her needless–did I mention that it was also churlish and ill-advised?–response to the Gifford assassination attempt, and at the end of January another CW spinner, Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, declared February a “Palin-free” month.  Even Sarah could tell she was over-exposed.

So she’s retreated to the high grass temporarily. But let’s remember that it was only two months ago that her hiring of Michael Glassman to head Sarah PAC was seen as a strong indication that she was preparing to challenge Pres. Obama next year.

Then she went to India and Israel when she could have made just as much money closer to home.

So, no, I don’t think we can yet write her off as a fallen star.  If nothing else, her old Wasilla High point guard instinct will not allow her to stay on the bench as Michelle Bachman becomes the Tea Party’s new darling.

One thing about tides:  whatever direction they’re flowing in, they’ll soon move in the opposite direction.