GOP Presidential Primary Apocalypse

Tim Pawlenty’s former campaign staff is reportedly hoping to join the campaign of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. This is amusing: Who wants to start their campaign with a team of losers? It’s also pathetic: Unemployed campaign staffers pinning their future hopes on a guy who has repeatedly said he is not running for president. And the ex-Pawlenty staffers are trying to make themselves seem more desireable by asserting that they’ve “resisted overtures” from Paul Ryan’s prospective campaign.

Longtime Red State contributor Josh Trevino says Michelle Malkin is “insane”  and “fringe” to criticize Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Matt Lewis of the Daily Caller wrote: “Some conservatives, of course, weren’t happy with Malkin’s criticism. When it comes to covering conservative primary candidates, some people think conservative writers should just turn a blind eye — or  solely focus on attacking Obama.”

The problem here is that Perry’s fans — and the Red State crew seems to be leading the charge — have portrayed their guy as All That and a Slice of Cheese and now seem to expect everyone else to cede the nomination to their anointed candidate. As I have explained, I was offended by the Perry campaign’s roll-out, a deliberate diss to the Ames Straw Poll. (Iowan sources told me that Perry’s people had approached the Iowa GOP about getting in on the straw poll and evidently didn’t like the terms offered.) My out-front support of Herman Cain might suffice to explain my resentment of the Perrybots, but really: Don’t supporters of other candidates — Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, et al. — also have a legitimate grievance at being told that Perry is beyond criticism?

They’ve been out out there getting chewed up every day for months, and suddenly they’re just supposed to acclaim the Anointed One?

Because Red State says so? Dan Riehl eats Red Staters for breakfast.

Meanwhile, Dave Weigel has a good piece exploring the possibility of an endless primary fight that results in a brokered convention at Tampa.

I had raised this same possibility Thursday, with the caveat that it’s probably wishful thinking: A brokered convention is every political journalist’s dream. It was what we’d all hoped the Hillary-Obama battle would lead to in 2008. Yet the crowded GOP field and the new RNC rules about delegate apportionment — prohibiting winner-take-all primaries before April 1 — do permit the glimmer of hope that we could witness a multi-ballot Armageddon at the Republican convention. (Theme song: “It’s the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.”)

And while you wrap your mind around the idea of a Tampa apocalypse, consider this: The Sept. 3 Iowa “Restoring America” rally featuring Sarah Palin has switched its site to Indianola to handle a larger crowd:

There has been speculation that Palin, a former governor of Alaska and 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate, could use the event as an opportunity to announce whether she plans to run for president in 2012.
“I don’t know if she’s going to announce or not,” said Charlie Gruschow, co-founder of Tea Party of America. “But whether or not she announces, we’re going to have a huge event.”

Everybody who knows anything about presidential politics has already decided that Sarah Palin is not running in 2012.

But has Sarah Palin decided yet?


If Sarah Palin Isn’t Running for President, Why Is She Releasing This Iowa Video?

New from SarahPAC:

And everyone who had previously concluded that Palin is not running in 2012 — I among them — must now ask themselves: Why is she making a such a big deal about her Iowa trip? And, while we’re asking that question, why is she giving a speech at a Sept. 3 Tea Party rally in Waukee, Iowa? Given the current large field of GOP candidates, what percentage of the vote would Palin need to win Iowa caucus Feb. 6?

These questions seem to multiply, the more I think about it. For example, if Palin used her Sept. 3 speech at Waukee to declare herself a candidate, would that secure her an invitation to the Sept. 7 Simi Valley debate? Or the Sept. 12 Tampa debate?


Irony Alert: Meghan McCain Criticizes Sarah Palin for ‘Attention-Seeking Antics’

New idiocy frrom the world’s dumbest dumb blonde:

Much of Sarah Palin’s allure seems to fade by each passing talking point of Michele Bachmann’s that goes viral. And with each passing day, Sarah Palin looks more and more like a confused woman who can’t decide which way to go. The last thing our country needs right now is a president who can’t make up her mind or make tough decisions. As Americans, we live in perilous times and what we need is real leadership. Republicans really have a chance to win the White House in 2012. We don’t need to be distracted by Sarah Palin’s attention-seeking antics anymore, unless of course she actually decides to stop flirting and finally make a move to announce her candidacy.

Yeah. Meghan’s an expert on “attention-seeking antics.”

The Pappas-Palin Drama

Last night I wrote a post at The American Spectator entitled, “Dear Governor Palin: Please Call Me,” an attempt to clear up a misunderstanding of an incident that transpired Friday while Sarah Palin was at the Iowa State Fair.

While the governor has not yet called, I have spoken to people familar with the situation who are aghast at how the Daily Caller’s Alex Pappas, Politico and the Spectator‘s Quin Hillyer have misinterpreted the incident. One of the people to whom I spoke was Michelle McCormick of Iowa for Palin, who was with the governor at the time she called Pappas to dispute a headline (which, it turns out, was from Fox Nation, not from the Daily Caller) suggesting that Palin had endorsed Mitt Romney.

Now, let’s get one thing clear up front: McCormick is among many Palin supporters who believe that she is going to announce a 2012 presidential campaign within a matter of weeks. I have gone on record as rejecting that belief as a delusion. However, there are enough people telling me not to rule out the possibility — and some of those are swearing up and down they definitely know she will run — that I’m beginning to question whether I’ve completely misread the tea leaves. So . . .

A headline appeared online suggesting that Palin had endorsed Romney, and Palin decided to personally intervene to correct the record. That much of the Palin-Pappas tale is true, and I think it may be highly suggestive that she is indeed seriously considering an entry into the 2012 field. What is false about the developing media version of the Palin-Pappas narrative, according to McCormick and others, is three things:

  1. Governor Palin did not personally dial up Pappas’s number. She asked around among her aides if anyone knew how to get in touch with Pappas. One member of her advance team, Jason Recher, had Pappas’s number, called him and then handed the phone to the governor.
  2. Governor Palin did not summon a Politico reporter to listen in on the call. Palin was in the middle of a gigantic crowd of people at the Iowa State Fair, and her half of the conversation may have been overheard by others. There was no way, amid the press of the throng, that anyone outside that swarm could have been summoned at all, and the idea that Palin would be doing favors for a Politico reporter is ridiculous.
  3. Governor Palin wasn’t screaming angrily at Pappas. Again, Palin was in the middle of a crowd, which was quite noisy, and if her voice was loud, it was because she was trying to make herself heard amid the hubub.

After the conversation was over, and Palin realized that the misleading headline wasn’t Pappas’s fault, she asked one of her aides to contact Pappas and apologize for the mistake. Pappas says that the aide did not actually apologize, but I have no idea what was said in their conversation, so I can’t speak to that. But Palin’s supporters are furious at Pappas for “whining” (note the quotation marks) about the incident, and incensed by Hillyer’s characterization of Palin’s behavior as that of a “difficult diva.”

Now the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin has jumped on the dogpile, accepting Hillyer’s characterization of the incident as gospel, and what is being lost amid all this unnecessary drama is the actual political news value: Sarah Palin is serious enough about a 2012 presidential bid that she evidently considered it an urgent matter to knock down any suggestion that she had endorsed another candidate.

UPDATE: Let me direct a word or two toward some of the people who are saying that it would be crazy for Palin to get into the 2012 field at this point, and impossible for her to win, if she did.

First, I’m inclined to agree, which was why I was willing to declare last night that anyone who still believes Palin will run is suffering from a True Believer delusion.

Second . . . eh, not so fast, buddy.

Dan Riehl is about the last person on earth I’d accuse of being a True Believer, and yet his own reading of tea leaves leads him to think that Palin is absolutely serious when she says she’s still considering a 2012 run. Knowing Dan like I know Dan, I consider that highly significant.

Furthermore, many people who are disparaging Palin’s chances are supporters of one or another of the current GOP candidates, and some of them are conspicuously aboard the Rick Perry bandwagon. But let me point you to a Tweet that Tony Lee of Human Events sent yesterday in which he suggests we may now learn how much of Perry’s victory over Kay Bailey Hutchison in last year’s GOP primary was due to Palin endorsing Perry. And then there’s some guy predicting that Perry’s campaign will “self-destruct” within a month.

For a couple of weeks now, I’ve been hearing from people who say that Perry is a lot weaker candidate than Perry’s supporters imagine. We will wait and see about that. There have also been people telling me that they expect the Bachmann campaign to “implode,” and we’ll wait and see about that, too.

But if Bachmann does implode, and/or the Perry machine proves to be less than the unstoppable conservative juggernaut it has been hyped up to be, then the GOP field could develop a vacuum of the kind that nature proverbially abhors. So it may be that Palin is preparing a contingency plan for a campaign just in case such a scenario develops.

If the mood strikes her and the opportunity seems right, she could announce her candidacy on short notice and then quickly mobilize such a contingency organization. The money from tens of thousands of small donors would come flooding in and at that point I, for one, would be unwilling to wager $20 against her chances of being the Republican nominee when all is said and done at Tampa next summer.

Should Sarah shock the world by running in 2012 and confound conventional wisdom by winning the nomination, there are many who contend that she could not possibly beat Obama in the general election. Yet those would be the same people who now say she won’t run at all, so why should we believe their forecasts then, after she will have already twice proven them wrong, first by deciding to run so late, and then by winning the nomination against their advice?

UPDATE II: Stacy Drake at Conservatives for Palin also communicated with Michelle McCormick to set the record straight. I am loath to blame my friend Quin Hillyer for this kerfuffle — he’s a Southern hothead like me, and perhaps too prone to quick judgments — while Alex Pappas is, after all, a recent University of Alabama graduate whose youth might excuse his unfortunate part in the drama. What I don’t understand is why other reporters aren’t seeing this as I do, namely as a tiny yet tangible clue that Palin is seriously considering a 2012 run.

Blogging About Pathetic Perverts and Also Andrew Sullivan’s Sarah Palin Toe Fetish

Sarah Palin thronged by admirers during her Friday visit to the Iowa State Fair.

HARTSELLE, Alabama
Does the headline seem a tad redundant? Never mind. My travels around Iowa and yesterday’s 700-mile trip with Ladd Ehlinger down here to Alabama have kept me offline so much that I haven’t had much time to keep up with headlines, e-mails and such. (I’m waaaaaay behind on thank-you notes to tip-jar hitters.) So now I’m doing some catch-up blogging, and the first thing I stumbled across was the POH Diaries post about a 56-year-old music teacher who “was caught nude performing sex acts on a childlike doll that police say he had cut holes into.”

Was it a boy doll or a girl doll? The newspaper story doesn’t say:

Officers were called to Allendale Elementary School on Prescott Way in Spring Hill amid reports of a white male with a duffle bag under a bridge on school property. . . .
According to Torroll, he suffers from an attention deficit disorder which he says affects his inability to resist certain sexual impulses, though none of which involve children. . . .
On the Web site DannyTorroll.com, the Web site for the Danny Torroll Skool of Music and Art, Torroll says he teaches “eight very gifted students” ranging in age from seven to 12-years-old.
He describes the school as “an anomaly in the upper education platform for serious students of all instruments,” according to the site.

Is he teaching flute lessons to these “very gifted students”? And if he has the “inability to resist” an impulse to have sex with a doll outside an elementary school, what other impulses does Danny Torroll find irresistible? Again, the article doesn’t tell us. But speaking of twisted freaks with irresistible impulses . . .

Why can’t Andrew Sullivan resist the impulse to mock Sarah Palin?

Really, Sully: Did you have to turn a photo caption of Sarah Palin’s toenails into a post? Is your sadistic compulsion to diminish and ridicule women so overwhelming that you lack the willpower to necessary to fight the urge? Do you lack even the basic self-awareness necessary to recognize that your persistent symptoms of Palin Derangement Syndrome reinforce harmful stereotypes of gay men as vicious weaklings with “mommy issues”? And if not, are you such a reckless misogynist as to disregard how your attacks on Governor Palin foster hostility to women in politics?

Expecting restraint and self-awareness from Andrew Sullivan is a doomed hope, of course, but it is interesting to see that Sully’s PDS has continued long past the point where any serious observer believes Palin will run for president in 2012. Continue reading Blogging About Pathetic Perverts and Also Andrew Sullivan’s Sarah Palin Toe Fetish →

More To The Point, Sarah Palin Has Weathered The Left’s Continuous Napalm Shower With Aplomb

by Smitty

Dan Riehl:

Palin has two critical qualities, unique in that they combine in her. Beholden to no one, without fear, or restraint, Palin articulates today’s conservatism in a prudent, positive and cogent manner. More than that, the media, while much of it both loves and hates her, conveys her message to an audience far more broadly than they do for any other contemporary politician. I suspect, no matter who ultimately secures the 2012 Republican nomination, that will always be the case.

I agree with Dan’s whole post, but a third point (maybe a variation on the first point) is that she has already borne the brunt of an unbridled propaganda assault without crumbling. The more the minions of the Progressive Cthulhu strike at her, the stronger she becomes, and the more openly craven and stupid they appear. She rises like a phoenix from their ashes.

Why the continued hesitation, then? She has more to gain by not explicitely declaring. As Daily Pundit notes, quoting Zero Hedge, there are more seamounts ahead, across which BHO must drive the sinking ship of state:

The date will be on or about September 30th. The issue will be the need to pass a Continuing Resolution by the House.

For more than 850 days the US has gone without a budget. The House passed one not long ago; the Senate tabled it. The Administration has not offered up one either. The absence of an approved budget means that the only way the country can continue to operate is through a series of temporary extensions.

Think of the absolute value of the Daily Presidential Tracking Poll as a measure of degrees of list in the ship of state. BHO has been in the low 20’s for the last couple of days. How close to -30 approval can he go before capsizing?

After the next Wisconsin recall election, and after more debt crisis, Sarah reduces the risk that the Left can reconstitute itself by using hatred of her as a rallying cry. Also, while a few other GOP candidates are not necessarily bad for cover, letting the herd thin itself a bit, and letting the Left expend its energies against them, is not a bad thing.

Too, part of the problem with what Progress has done to America is that people have been reduced to an infantile impatience. Politics ain’t beanbag, and it also ain’t basketball, which is geared toward those lacking an attention span. Ironically, for someone who was once a basketball star, Sarah is showing massive amounts of patience, letting the game unfold at a medium pace. The Left is forced to recycle its talking points, excrete them, and re-consume them, enjoying the taste of its Progress all the while. And then she takes the occasional, well-aimed shot from the inexpensive high ground of her FaceBook page.

While certainly a violation of the Holy Narrative, her poise and control of situation is a stark contrast from the spineless impotence of her purported superior, the incumbent. Lay by your dish, Olbermann; get stuffed, Matthews; get bent, Maddow. Ya got nothin’, and neither does BHO.

Sarah’s Coming to Iowa

NEWTON, Iowa
Tuesday, I met with Peter Singleton and Michelle McCormick of Iowa for Palin. And during our conversation, Peter kept referring to “when” Sarah Palin gets into the 2012 campaign. All the pundits have concluded that she’s not running, but . . . well, it’s Sarah Palin we’re talking about, so never say never:

After a more than two-month hiatus, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is planning to crash the presidential party once again with a heartland-themed re-launch of her “One Nation” bus tour this week in Iowa, according to a Palin fundraising email obtained by CNN.
Palin is bringing her Constitution-draped bus to the Iowa State Fair, just 30 miles south of where the Republican presidential field will take the stage on Thursday for a presidential debate in Ames.
It’s not yet clear which day the tour begins, but her surprise arrival in Iowa will happen before the closely watched Ames straw poll. Palin is not on the straw poll ballot.

Whether I’ll be able to catch Palin’s bus tour is an open question. She hasn’t published a schedule, although she has released a video:

It’s Not News, But Why Miss a Chance to Use ‘Palin’ in a Deceptive Headline?

Today’s news from the Department of Deceptive Headlines:

Bristol Palin To Star In A Reality Show
With Disney Channel’s Kyle Massey

Checking my calendar — yep, it’s July 18 — I point out this headline from a press release issued on May 9:

BIO CHANNEL GREENLIGHTS UNTITLED
BRISTOL PALIN, CHRISTOPHER MASSEY
AND KYLE MASSEY DOCU-SERIES

Permit me further to share this tip about the practice of journalism: Never report old news as if you were breaking an exclusive.

A fact that was first announced in a press release 10 weeks ago is not news, and trying to pretend that it is news only makes you look stupid. A more accurate headline would have been:

MEDIAITE.COM HAS VIDEO OF
BRISTOL PALIN ON FOX NEWS

Which isn’t how they headlined it, because that wouldn’t permit Mediaite.com to pretend they’d scored The Big Scoop, when all they did was write a story about a cable TV interview and put their own logo on a video that has been on FoxNews.com since yesterday afternoon:

This cheap stunt would be too trivial to mention, had I not seen the Mediaite story as a Memeorandum thread, suggesting that some bloggers had not previously been aware of this 10-week-old news, even though I’d reprinted nearly the entire May 9 press release in a May 27 item at The American Spectator with the title, “The Palin Principle of Liberal Media Ethics.” I then linked that item here with the headline, “Media Ignores Black Woman Who Calls Palin ‘Funny, Nice and Genuinely Warm’.”

What I did not do on May 27 was to pretend that the (then) two-week-old announcement of Bristol’s reality-show deal was news. And yet you may rest assured that Mediaite.com’s deceptively-headlined story will be linked at various conservative blogs because it evidently never occurs to anyone to check the facts.

It is at times like this that I recall the famous words of P.J. O’Rourke: “What the fuck? What the fucking fuck, huh?“