Personally, I think this is a smart, savvy move.

Here’s what she had to say…

After much prayer and serious consideration, I have decided that I will not be seeking the 2012 GOP nomination for President of the United States. As always, my family comes first and obviously Todd and I put great consideration into family life before making this decision. When we serve, we devote ourselves to God, family and country. My decision maintains this order.

My decision is based upon a review of what common sense Conservatives and Independents have accomplished, especially over the last year. I believe that at this time I can be more effective in a decisive role to help elect other true public servants to office – from the nation’s governors to Congressional seats and the Presidency. We need to continue to actively and aggressively help those who will stop the “fundamental transformation” of our nation and instead seek the restoration of our greatness, our goodness and our constitutional republic based on the rule of law.

From the bottom of my heart I thank those who have supported me and defended my record throughout the years, and encouraged me to run for President. Know that by working together we can bring this country back – and as I’ve always said, one doesn’t need a title to help do it.

I will continue driving the discussion for freedom and free markets, including in the race for President where our candidates must embrace immediate action toward energy independence through domestic resource developments of conventional energy sources, along with renewables. We must reduce tax burdens and onerous regulations that kill American industry, and our candidates must always push to minimize government to strengthen the economy and allow the private sector to create jobs.

Those will be our priorities so Americans can be confident that a smaller, smarter government that is truly of the people, by the people, and for the people can better serve this most exceptional nation.

In the coming weeks I will help coordinate strategies to assist in replacing the President, re-taking the Senate, and maintaining the House.

Thank you again for all your support. Let’s unite to restore this country!
God bless America.
– Sarah Palin

She’s young enough that she doesn’t have to run this time around, and she’s still too much of a joke…and she knows it. Plus, now her endorsement carries weight because she can mobilize a lot of those Tea Party folks who may otherwise stay home. At least that’s the theory. And after another 4 years of a Dem or 8 years of GOP control, she’ll either be ready to run and be considered a serious candidate or have drifted off into the political ether. Here’s hoping it’s the latter, but something tells me she isn’t going away.

Your thoughts?

Both Newt and Rick are making presidential rumblings and that means that paying them on a “news” channel is a bad idea…apparently.

From New York Times:

On Wednesday, the cable news channel suspended two paid contributors, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, who are both weighing presidential bids.

While the channel’s move seems pre-emptive — Mr. Gingrich is expected to signal his intentions on Thursday — it still leaves Fox with three other potential candidates: Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee and John Bolton. But those three, according to Fox, have not shown serious intentions to set up presidential exploratory committees.

This is what they had to say…

“We can’t have Speaker Gingrich on our payroll while he is in the midst of an exploratory committee to see if he’s going to run for office,” Dianne Brandi, Fox News’s executive vice president for legal and business affairs, told the Los Angeles Times. “It’s a clear conflict.”

So, Gingrich and Santorum are gone. Now they need to do the right thing with Huckabee and Palin (I seriously doubt Bolton would run). We all know those two are running.

By the way…

No other television networks employ anyone who is expected to run for the Republican nomination.

Do they employ any Democrats?

Just saying…

Yesterday they said this…

“We never ever, ever intended it to be gun sights,” [Palin staffer Rebecca Mansour] said.

“It’s surveyor’s symbols,” the interviewer Tammy Bruce suggested. [...]

Mansour agreed. She said that the graphic was contracted out to a professional. They approved it quickly without thinking about it. “We never imagined, it never occurred to us that anybody would consider it violent,” she said. Rather, she said, that it was simply “crosshairs that you would see on a map.”

There is “nothing irresponsible about our graphic,” she said.

In November…Palin said this…

So…what’s going on here? Was Palin simply misinformed? Or are her spokespeople playing fast and loose with the truth? Either way, I think it’s pretty obvious that this type of rhetoric has no place in our national discourse.

And to that point…one of the aims of this blog has been to try and stop the bomb throwing rhetoric. This is a moment in time when we can point towards some particularly stupid messaging on her part and say, “Please stop.”

On this I hope we can agree.

Incredibly eerie in retrospect. Here’s what Gifford said on March 25, 2010…

“…for example, we’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list, but the thing is that the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district, and when people do that, they’ve gotta realize there are consequences to that action.”

This was in response to Giffords’ door being shattered by somebody after the Palin target list popped up.

And here’s the video…

Again, I ask Republicans to stop using gun rhetoric and symbolism in their campaign literature. It’s completely unnecessary and only appeals to extremism within your base.

The motives of the coward who shot a bunch of people (including Dem Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords) down in Arizona earlier today are not known, but I think we can all agree that campaign literature like this certainly doesn’t help…

Yes, I’m talking about Sarah Palin. This was the tweet announcing the ridiculous image above…

This type of stuff is completely irresponsible. Especially when followed up with this from Giffords’ opponent Jesse Kelly…

Both of these images have been taken off of their respective websites, but h/t to FDL for rounding them up.

The last report is that Giffords is in surgery, but 5 are dead.

One additional piece of info…

In March, hours after Giffords voted in favor of health care reform, the front door of Giffords’ Tucson office was shattered, also a side glass panel.

More as it develops…

Obama is baiting the trap and if the GOP candidate doesn’t take it in 2012, it could spell trouble for the Dems.

Last night the President said this…

I have no doubt that everyone will find something in this compromise that they don’t like. In fact, there are things in here that I don’t like — namely the extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and the wealthiest estates. But these tax cuts will expire in two years. And I’m confident that as we make tough choices about bringing our deficit down, as I engage in a conversation with the American people about the hard choices we’re going to have to make to secure our future and our children’s future and our grandchildren’s future, it will become apparent that we cannot afford to extend those tax cuts any longer.

We already know that tax cuts for the wealthy are wildly unpopular and polling shows this again and again. And the sentiment among Tea Partiers is that the deficit needs to come down, and quick. Since Romney (I’m assuming he’ll be the GOP’s choice) can’t attack Obama on healthcare since he enacted virtually the same system in Massachusetts while Governor, the “big spender” message is what he’ll shellac Obama with…and it’ll stick.

But here’s the thing…voters aren’t going to let the GOP have their cake and eat it too. They’re already seeing how they’re saying one thing and then doing another with this tax cut compromise. So, if Romney makes a campaign pledge to let those tax cuts expire due to the rising deficit, he could win. If not, I don’t see much hope for the GOP.

Three caveats to this.

#1 – If Sarah Palin somehow manages to win the nomination, I don’t think there’s anything she can do to actually win the White House. So this argument will be moot. Well, there is one really outside chance and it’s talked about in #2. So let’s get to that…

#2 – If Huckabee gets nominated, and I see him as Romney’s biggest challenge, he’s probably going to run on the FairTax plan, which makes the above moot as well. So if Palin adopts this idea, that could be good for her campaign.

#3 – As always, a terrorist attack changes everything.

Your thoughts?

Joe Scarborough will be part of the No Lables forum on December 13. And I am pleased.

From Huff Post:

WASHINGTON — TV’s Joe Scarborough, who today dismissed Sarah Palin as a symbol of “anti-intellectualism” with a “dopey dream” of being president, will help headline the launch next month of a new national group dedicated to restoring civility in politics.

Scarborough, a Republican, former Florida congressman and host of “Morning Joe” on MSNBC, will participate in the debut event of “No Labels” on December 13 at Columbia University in New York.

In case you haven’t heard, No Labels is a group who seeks to forward the political discussion beyond the partisan bickering.

And just in case you think No Labels is a partisan org, check out the pedigree…

Nancy Jacobson, a leading Democratic fundraiser and wife of Clinton-era pollster Mark Penn, launched “No Labels” last year with major advice coming from Mark McKinnon, who was media advisor to George W. Bush in 2000 and Sen. John McCain in 2008.

And let’s heed the group’s call to action…

The message of the group, encapsulated in a “Declaration” written by McKinnon, is a plea for calm, reason and cooperation. “We are not labels, we are people… We believe hyper-partisanship is destroying our politics and paralyzing our ability to govern… We may disagree on issues, but we do so with civility and mutual respect….

“We have a crisis of governance – a crisis that compels us to work together to move America forward… We must put our labels aside, and put the issues and what’s best for the nation first.”

Certainly something we can all get behind?

More as it develops…

At this point I think we can assume she’s running. Initially I didn’t think there was any chance that would happen, but after the past couple weeks I can’t help but think that the writing is on the wall. Especially since January is right around the corner and Politimas only comes only once every 4 years.

Here’s the news from ABC…

Here’s my take…Palin is seriously overestimating the power of the Tea Party, especially when you marry her popularity rate with their message and her record.

Still…let the good times roll!

Somewhere Mitt Romney is slapping his forehead.

Sarah Palin’s new reality show claims to show her in a “natural” setting. I bet there are more interesting perspectives on this natural state.

She’s the gift that keeps on giving.

Please oh please oh please run for President.

We’ll have to see how all of the Tea Party candidates fare, but if they do well I’d bet $1,000 that she’s running.

From Fox News:

“If the American people were to be ready for someone who is willing to shake it up, and willing to get back to time-tested truths, and help lead our country towards a more prosperous and safe future and if they happen to think I was the one, if it were best for my family and for our country, of course I would give it a shot,” she said.

“But I’m not saying that it’s me. I know I can certainly make a difference without having a title. I’m having a good time doing exactly that right now.”

But, could she win the nomination? Well, again, I think it has to do with the state of the GOP at that point. But it’s very likely that many of these candidates will start announcing in early 2011 to get a jump on fundraising. Remember, Obama formally announced on February 10, 2007, but a month earlier had formed an exploratory committee.

So when you hear talk like this from candidates who are very popular, the die may already be cast.

More as it develops…

I’ve come to the conclusion that the future of all mainstream media news is Taiwanese animation. This piece from NMA News in Taiwan explains our 2012 presidential election prelims to a Chinese audience.

Hey, if he’s right, shame on them. Well, more than shame on them. They should spend their lives in prison for all of the destruction they’ve caused.

But for some reason…I don’t think folks who have spent their lives defending the environment would deliberately cause one of the worst environmental disasters in our lifetime just to get legislation passed that they felt was inherently compromised.

Call it a hunch.

In any event…the Rush…

I want to get back to the timing of the blowing up, the explosion out there in the Gulf of Mexico of this oil rig. … Now, lest we forget, ladies and gentlemen, the carbon tax bill, cap and trade, that was scheduled to be announced on Earth Day. I remember that. And then it was postponed for a couple of days later after Earth Day, and then of course immigration has now moved in front of it. But this bill, the cap-and-trade bill, was strongly criticized by hardcore environmentalist wackos because it supposedly allowed more offshore drilling and nuclear plants, nuclear plant investment. So, since they’re sending SWAT teams down there, folks, since they’re sending SWAT teams to inspect the other rigs, what better way to head off more oil drilling, nuclear plants, than by blowing up a rig? I’m just noting the timing here.

Yeah, just noting the timing…sure…

Seems like the right wing is trading in many conspiracy theories these days and none of them have any validity whatsoever. But that doesn’t stop them from making them and trying to convince their followers that they should always question everything except what they say.

By the way, genuine props to Sarah Palin for her post about this tragedy. It was a serious response to what happened and regardless of her “drill baby drill” attitude, I applaud the seriousness with which she addressed this situation.

Does it need the GOP to be legitimate? No.

However…having somebody like Sarah Palin certainly got them a lot of attention last week.

Still, one Tea Party leader doesn’t like it one bit…

A prominent Tea Party leader from Texas is warning that the movement “is becoming nothing more than a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party,” and slamming Sarah Palin as representing “a growing insider’s attack to the heart of the Tea Party.”

Dale Robertson, the founder of TeaParty.org, is just the latest Tea Partier to express concern that the movement is being hijacked by the GOP.

In a lengthy statement — entitled “Warning: Tea Party In Danger” — posted yesterday on the TeaParty.org homepage, Robertson instructs his felllow Tea Partiers to “[b]e alert to turncoats and deceivers being herded into the Tea Party by usurpers from the weakened Republican Party for the sole purpose of capturing our populist movement.”

So what do the Tea Partiers want? Glenn Reynolds digs in and finds something surprising…

There were promises of transparency and of a new kind of collaborative politics where establishment figures listened to ordinary Americans. We were going to see net spending cuts, tax cuts for nearly all Americans, an end to earmarks, legislation posted online for the public to review before it is signed into law, and a line-by-line review of the federal budget to remove wasteful programs.

These weren’t the tea-party platforms I heard discussed in Nashville last weekend. They were the campaign promises of Barack Obama in 2008.

Mr. Obama made those promises because the ideas they represented were popular with average Americans. So popular, it turns out, that average Americans are organizing themselves in pursuit of the kind of good government Mr. Obama promised, but has not delivered. And that, in a nutshell, was the feel of the National Tea Party Convention. The political elites have failed, and citizens are stepping in to pick up the slack.

So, if Obama can deliver more on his campaign promises…will the Tea Party crowd fall in line?

Consider me highly skeptical of that…

Seriously, why give Palin this type of attention?

Also, doesn’t this make the White House seem unserious?

If you have any ideas, I’m all ears.

And by a very large margin.

Hotline On Call breaks down the numbers…

Mitt Romney: 81 points
Tim Pawlenty: 46
John Thune: 38
Haley Barbour: 28
Mitch Daniels: 25
Sarah Palin: 25

Note how far down Palin is on that list. That’s because, as noted, this is a poll of party insiders and they really don’t like her.

So what do Dem insiders think? Once again, Mitt’s a hit…

Romney: 29%
Thune: 15
Pawlenty: 13
Daniels: 11
Gingrich: 6

By the way, where did Huckabee go? Did the tragic Maurice Clemmons incident really hurt him that much?

Also, what’s with John Thune jumping to the top of the pack all of a sudden? If Mitt is a shoo-in for the GOP nomination in 2012, would Thune be a good running mate?

I’m not kidding. It’s the perfect combination. A slew of ill informed protesters who heart Glenn Beck, think they know “true” conservative values and are convinced our country is turning into a dictatorship and Sarah Palin…an ill informed politician who hearts Glenn Beck, claims she knows “true” conservative values and loves to convince folks our country is turning into a dictatorship…and that Obama wants to kill your grandparents.

What’s not to love?

So yes, I’m bringing this up because she’s headlining their first convention, and that’s where it gets very interesting. Because while the Republicans have a big opportunity to pick up steam going in 2012, the Tea Party movement could completely undermine it…in much the same way the Deaniacs did in 2004.

A political scientist explains…

But courting what many call a fringe and inchoate movement carries huge risks, argues Alan Abramowitz, a political scientist at Emory University, in Atlanta.

He says a Republican shift toward the Reaganesque Tea Party ideal could lead to a sort of pogrom for moderate Republicans, forcing out those (think Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe) who don’t hew precisely to rock-hard conservative principles around economic freedom and limited government interference.

“The Republican Party is trapped by their base, which is going increasingly conservative,” says Mr. Abramowitz. “Yes, Republicans can do fairly well in the 2010 elections – it’s entirely possible that they could pick up 20 to 30 seats in the House – but they could read the wrong message from that. In 2012, if the economy is doing reasonably well again and Obama’s popularity has stabilized, that strategy is going to be very risky and this could all come back to haunt them.”

Oh, and Palin is getting paid anywhere from $75K to $100K to speak at the event. Looks like freedom pays handsomely!

My question: Does this hint at a third party run in 2012?

I know many don’t think Sarah Palin is a smart woman. And hey, fair enough. It’s not like she made a good impression in 2008. However, I think you have to possess some smarts to become Governor of any state. After all, look how Dubya parlayed his run in Texas to 8 years in the Oval Office.

So while I’m not suggesting that the following clip proves she Magna Cum Laude material, it’s going to take some convincing that this isn’t a smart move.

And do note how the LA crowd goes NUTS on her arrival.

Yes, she’s a force to be reckoned with come 2012. Not just because she’s Sarah Palin, but because she’s becoming very comfortable as the Sarah Palin we know. Also, many of those same folks who dismissed Dubya as a dummy are doing the same with Palin. And the lower the expectations are set, the easier it is for a politician to surprise.

So whether she’ll make a splash in the GOP primaries or as a third party folk hero (Tea Party candidate?), it’s clear she’s not going away any time soon.

Oh boy…here we go…

On the Rusty Humphries show on Thursday, Sarah Palin said the following…

Humphries: Would you make the birth certificate an issue if you ran?

Palin: I think the public, rightfully, is still making it an issue. I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t know if I would have to bother to make it an issue ’cause I think there are enough members of the electorate who still want answers.

Humphries: Do you think it’s a fair question to be looking at?

Palin: I think it’s a fair question, just like I think past associations and past voting record — all of that is fair game. You know, I’ve got to tell you, too: I think our campaign, the McCain/Palin campaign didn’t do a good enough job in that area. We didn’t call out Obama and some of his associates on their records and what their beliefs were and perhaps what their future plans were. And I don’t think that that was fair to voters to not have done our jobs as candidates and as a campaign to bring to light a lot of the things that now we’re seeing made manifest in the administration.

Humphries: I mean, truly, if your past is fair game and your kids are fair game, certainly Obama’s past should be. I mean, we want to treat men and women equally, right?

Palin: Hey, you know, that’s a great point, in that weird conspiracy-theory freaky thing that people talk about that Trig isn’t my real son. And a lot of people say, “Well you need to produce his birth certificate! You need to prove that he’s your kid!” Which we have done. But yeah, so maybe we could reverse that and use the same type thinking on them.

And, here’s the video. It’s 7min45sec in.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again…I’ll never forgive McCain for turning Palin into a conservative folk hero.

Ugh.

Why oh why oh why oh why?

They gave her an incredibly easy way to ignore the more substantive arguments against her legitimacy as a candidate and focus on their dumb decision to run with the above nonsense.

And this isn’t just coming from her corner. It’s coming from Media Matters and other voices in the liberal blogosphere.

As they put it…

Newsweek offers some interesting analysis of Palin and her appeal in its November 23 issue. Unfortunately, its sexist treatment of Palin’s physical appearance distracts from any legitimate arguments the magazine and its contributors wish to make.

It’s such a stupid decision it boggles the mind. You run a original head shot of her in this situation, not rerun some picture from Runner’s World.

Jon Meachum is calling the shots over there, and his response to all this is inane…

We chose the most interesting image available to us to illustrate the theme of the cover, which is what we always try to do.

We apply the same test to photographs of any public figure, male or female: does the image convey what we are saying? That is a gender-neutral standard.

Yeah, so when’s the last time they ran a photo of any other politician wearing shorts?

Good lord…