Posted on 10/06/2011 1:50:34 PM PDT by Second Amendment First
The muted GOP reaction to Sarah Palin’s departure from the Republican presidential field Wednesday suggests the party had moved on months ago. Not so for the thriving cottage industry that grew at her feet, and whose future is now in danger.
Palin-lovers, Palin-haters, a half-dozen publishing houses, and elements of the mainstream media who tracked her plans long after the Republican campaign bypassed her suddenly face a future without their entertaining, unpredictable, and now scarcely-relevant subject.
Palin’s circle of online admirers greeted her announcement with shock and dismay. The camp who saw her as a nascent American Mussolini, with shock and joy. And the publishers, broadcasters, and reporters who yoked themselves to Palin were already moving on.
“I hope I can continue to cover the GOP primary and election as I have been doing,” said ABC’s Shushannah Walshe, the co-author with RealClearPolitics reporter Scott Conroy of the 2009 “Sarah from Alaska,” a evenhanded biography of Palin based on their time covering her as network campaign “embeds.” Conroy declined to comment on what her withdrawal would mean for him, but had already turned his attention to intense coverage of the early primaries, and posted a story Wednesday night that barely mentioned his former subject.
The partisans were more emotional.
“The reason I wanted her to run is if there were one person who could [win the nomination] it was her,” said Tony Lee, a Human Events writer who regularly took to Twitter to lecture dimwitted pundits on how they were missing her obvious and calculated steps toward declaring a candidacy.
The Daily Beast’s Andrew Sullivan, who risked his mainstream reputation to question Palin’s character, politics, and even maternity, told POLITICO that now he can “get a life.”
“Helping to prevent her from getting her hands on power was one of my guiding goals once I realized the MSM was never going to do it,” he wrote. “I lost vast tracts of time and not a few t-cells trying to understand and expose this farce and it’s a huge relief that this preposterous saga is over. Just knowing she isn’t a threat is a huge psychic relief if you care about America and the world.”
The Palin industry rested on two premises: That she was personally capable of mounting a presidential campaign and that Republican voters, whose admiration for her was unquestioned, actually wanted her to run.
Doubts have built steadily about both of those notions — her inability to finish her term overseeing a small state government suggested the presidency was out of reach, and there was little evidence she was capable of laying the groundwork for a national campaign. And Republican voters, in polls and interviews, said increasingly they saw her as a party cheerleader, not a player. Tellingly, by early 2010, a majority of Republicans polled said she wasn’t qualified to be president.
But Palin’s admirers, detractors, and those who fed the dreams and fears of both held the line, and made the case: She was disorganized like a fox, preparing to run an unconventional but formidable campaign. Those pundits had it all wrong.
“Many prominent political analysts and Republican operatives have expressed skepticism that Palin is seriously considering a presidential bid, since she has not taken many of the steps that candidates traditionally take before jumping into the race, such as signing early-state consultants, contacting key powerbrokers and boosting their travel schedules,” Conroy wrote in July. “But Palin has a long history of shunning the Republican Party machinery and taking an unconventional approach to campaigns — a mind-set that appears to have been in play throughout the past several months.”
As the summer continued, her standing in polling sagged. Still, with some frequency, there were voices suggesting the real story was being overlooked.
“It’s important to note that no matter what, Palin plays by her own rules. It’s plausible that she could decide on Sept. 3 that she does want to announce without alerting her inner circle, much like her decision to resign from office in July 2009,” Walshe wrote. “Palin knows that a surprise announcement in front of her most passionate supporters would solidify her as the candidate that can always suck the oxygen out of the room. In a cycle with so many announcements before the announcement, she would be able to trump all the beltway pundits who have signaled her demise since 2008.”
Others in the Palin-media complex went far further. Fox’s Greta Van Susteren, whose husband John Coale backed a Palin campaign and helped Palin set up some political infrastructure, at times seemed to act as a Palin surrogate. When The Daily Caller published prurient quotes from boxer Mike Tyson about Palin, Van Susteren crusaded against its editor, Tucker Carlson, calling him “a pig” and a “purveyor of smut” and labeling the article he published an instance of “violence against women.”
And Van Susteren also at times blended admiration and prediction.
“First, I have absolutely no inside track (despite what some may think) but I am guessing Governor Sarah Palin is running for President in 2012,” she wrote in July, after privately celebrating the July 4 holiday with Palin.
Coale didn’t respond to inquiries after Palin dropped out, but Coale, a trial lawyer who typically supports Democratic causes, told POLITICO’s Alexander Burns earlier this week that he was prepared to switch his allegiance to pizza executive and talk radio host Herman Cain.
“I think [Cain] would be my guy if Sarah doesn’t get in,” he said. “The less establishment the better.”
Van Susteren’s consolation prize: The first Palin interview after her Fox colleague chose to break the news in an interview with radio host Mark Levin.
Of course, partisans of both sides and much of the press – POLITICO included – pursued the Palin beat with gusto and had an interest of sorts in seeing Palin as a candidate.
“Fox News has been making a serious charge about mainstream political reporters: They hate Sarah Palin,” POLITICO wrote last February. “This is not just wrong; it’s absurd. The reality is exactly the opposite: We love Palin.”
She spawned an industry not just of click-driven online news, but of books. She wrote two; her daughter Bristol wrote one. Estranged former aides and family-members cashed in too, with the father of Bristol’s son penning, “Deer in the Headlights: My Life in Sarah Palin’s Crosshairs.”
The legendary non-fiction writer Joe McGinniss moved in next door for a critically-panned long-form evisceration, but any number of lesser-known writers also took their cracks at it. Conroy and Walshe came out with the first and perhaps most straightforward attempt at a biography. They were followed by an array of admiring tomes – Matthew Continetti’s “The Persecution of Sarah Palin: How the Elite Media Tried to Bring Down a Rising Star” and Stephen Mansfield’s “The Faith and Values of Sarah Palin” — and ones warning of her danger, such as Geoffrey Dunn’s “The Lies of Sarah Palin: The Untold Story Behind Her Relentless Quest for Power,” and “Going Rouge: An American Nightmare,” by Richard Kim.
And there were the frankly commercial quote books: “You Betcha: The Witless Wisdom of Sarah Palin” designed for the haters, and “The Quotable Rogue” for her admirers.
Amazon.com lists more than 200 Palin books in all, many self-published.
“There’s little doubt that had Palin entered the race in, say, June (when The Quotable Rogue was released and she was on a bus tour), it would have nicely boosted book sales,” emailed that book’s author, The Daily Caller’s Matt Lewis. “As it is, The Quotable Rogue will now likely become a graduation present or stocking stuffer for people who already like and admire Governor Palin — which is fine by me.”
By the time a pro-Palin film, “The Undefeated,” was released this summer, though, the boom had mostly passed, and it closed after a short and modest run.
“I owe lotsa people dinners,” Lee, the Twitter Palin admirer, said ruefully.
The media professionals and staffers on the margins of Palin’s world, meanwhile, expressed some relief that the spotlight would now dim.
Tina Andreadis, who managed Palin’s book tour for HarperCollins, joked that New York Magazine’s Palin chronicler would finally leave her alone.
“At least Gabe Sherman will stop torturing me!” she emailed.
Love the Hermanator, but the last person elected President with NO elective office experience was Eisenhower, and he only, y'know, won WWII
Actually, your example proves the opposite of your conclusion!
Spousal unit and I were talking about this today while reading something about the "Corrupt Bargain" that put Rutherford B. Hayes into the White House.
We got on to Herman Cain and the fact that he had no elected experience and that last time that happened was probably Ike.
Then I said (my point here, finally!) - the thing about the presidency is that there is no fixed resume that the person should have. There are times when the president MUST have an unusual background, precisely because it is necessary to have a President that is unique for the times.
Ike was elected this way. He wasn't elected because he was a popular general. He was elected because the United States still had a lot of mopping up to do with the WWII, including figuring out our new military-industrial posture in the world (the U.S. had not been a Superpower until WWII), figuring out occupied Europe and Japan.
Ike had run a large organization -- the U.S. military -- and after the war the U.S. needed a President who knew how to run things, "move, shoot and communicate" as they say in the Army. Ike had helped transition from war to peace in the military and had helped stand down the wartime machines. Likewise the country now needed to make the transition from wartime to peacetime, all the while still have considerable mop-up duties around the world.
So Ike was elected because he was the right man FOR THE TIMES. He had the skill set and experience to address the unique issues facing the country at that time.
Cain is an accomplished, experienced, successful businessman who is also a great communicator and someone who CAN (unlike Obama) shift the topic of race, finally, into the 21st century. We need someone who knows how to run a business, who understands from experience the real economy. Sure, it's not WWII-level experience, but we don't need someone with Ike's skills now. Business, financial, real economy experience and skills are what we need NOW.
We may just be at one of those relatively rare points in history where there is a man who should be elected because, like Ike, he's right for the times he lives in.
Where's the evidence for that conclusion (that you've been "had")?
You had the same info to evaluate as did the authors whose opposite conclusions you called stupid.
You had people vigorously arguing with you that Palin would not run and you concluded she would.
You didn't call it right. So what? You weren't "had" by anyone. You simply thought what you thought for whatever reason and you were wrong. Other people looked at the same info and thought what they thought and they were right. That is all.
Don't blame it someone else. You reached your own conclusions just like everybody else.
Vendetta? I have to tell you that I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Thank you! Exactly what I wanted to reply as well, but the pithiness just wasn’t there so I passed.
I think it’s sad that Sarah felt the need to apologize to some of her supporters.
After arguing for years that she was basically perfect, she makes a decision they don’t respect and, even here on FR, some of the first posts were “what the hell is wrong with her, I thought she loved America.”
I can’t imagine how shocking that must be to Palin. That after all she has given, there’s a segment of her supposed “strongest supporters” who dump on her because she can’t give more right now.
I wonder.
I think she was doing brilliantly until the very end. I’m not sure she might not go through a steep drop-off in “political value” for a while, then build herself up.
Sarah Palin with no presidential aspirations is an unknown quantity. If that was what was keeping up interest in her, well, of course, interest will go down now. It certainly looks as though a lot of her “strongest” supporters turned around and stabbed her in the back just as soon as she made a decision that went against their “no doubt about it, she’s running” predictions.
If I were a candidate right now, it seems it’d be hard to tell if a Palin endorsement would be a gain, a drain or neutral. If she’s no longer going to deliver even the Palinistas (the ones, you know, who couldn’t spin fast enough to start screaming “what the hell is wrong with her, I thought she loved our country?”), what good is her endorsement? And might it not even be a negative?
At least for now.
Good grief, I would hate to be Sarah Palin.
Even her best supporters turn out to hate her.
But not one of those other tens of thousands of business millionaires and billionaires [you weren't intending classwarfare with that remark, were you?] is running.
Also please see my #402. Thanks.
I guess not.
Just seems to me that continuing to try to make some kind of case for how those who did not think Sarah would or should run are some kind of moral and political imbeciles a la Andrew Sullivan is kinda a vendetta.
I was making no case. I was stating a fact. The anti-Palin crowd sounded off just like Sullivan. And now they’re dancing with glee on her presidential grave. Just like liberals.
Another childish “Palin-didn’t-do-what-she-was-supposed-to-do” tantrum.
So what does an army do when it’s general goes AWOL? Sarah Palin has left the field and her army is dazed and confused. As one that has supported and battled on her behave ever since McCain introduced her to the American people I am bitterly disappointed in her decision not to seek the 2012 GOP nomination for the presidency of the USA. Sarah knows how to talk the talk but has a problem walking the walk. Thank goodness this nation had real leaders in it past that were willing to make the sacrifices necessary to see the country thru the crises or our past. Where would we be today if General Washington declined the moment to stay in Virgina and take care of Martha? Dido millions of other Americans that risked all in defense of this great nation.
Yes it is dangerous to be the point of the spear but without a point there is no spear. Without a leader there is no movement, without a general there is no army.
Political suicide is not a pretty thing to watch and Sarah political suicide will be particularly ugly. She has just proven all her detractors correct.
I was never really about winning, although winning was doable. It was about fighting the good fight, saving the nation from the corrupt political class that is ruining this country. Giving G*d fearing patriots a dog in the fight. As a candidate Sarah could have controlled the dialog and shined a light on the crony capitalism infesting D.C. Her value as a private citizen that has declined to join the battle will be greatly diminished. Why should anyone listen to a person that does not have the courage of her convictions? Now we have nothing but more of the same to look forward to. Meet the new boss same as the old boss. If anyone thinks any of the GOP candidates are going to clean up D.C I have a bridge in NYC for sale that might interest you.
The enemy is not the Democrats, the enemy is the corrupt political class that is ruling this country. Republicans as well as Democrats voted to bail out GM. Republicans as well as Democrats voted to bail out the banks. Republicans as well as Democrats voted to bail out Wall Street. The corrupt ruling class is so in your face that it gave itself millions of dollars in bonuses after bring about the near economic collapse of the country. Talk about “let them eat cake” is it possible to be more out of touch then that?
Well I don’t know what the rest of Sarahs’ army is going to do but this solder is going AWOL too. If my general doesn’t think the country is worth fighting for any longer then who am I to think otherwise? My garden needs tending, the house news a new roof and I have lots of other chores that need doing. As I am no longer a young man I only have one or two fights left in me and since the fight for 2012 has been canceled I’d better tend to personal business.
I wish Sarah nothing but the best in her personal life as a political leader I am finished with her.
Good point.
It’s absolutely stunning to me that Piper, Willow, Track or Bristol had the fate of our nation in their hands.
Apparently these were Palin’s advisers. Wonder what their thoughts on Syria are?
I’m still waiting on Amy Carter’s ‘thoughts’ on nuclear proliferation. ;)
You are making a case: you are (1) concluding facts and basing conclusions upon the facts you conclude, and (2) you are making two analogies, which, in Logic, are inherently a form of argument or making of a case.
The simplest variety of inductive reasoning is argument by analogy, which takes note of the fact that two or more things are similar in some respects and concludes that they are probably also similar in some further respect....
Suppose, for example, that I am thinking about buying a new car. I'm very likely to speak with other people who have recently bought new cars, noting their experiences with various makes, models, and dealers. If I discover that three of my friends have recently bought Geo Prizms from Burg and that all three have been delighted with their purchases, then I will conclude by analogy that if I buy a Geo Prizm from Burg, I will be delighted, too.
Evaluating Analogies
Of course, this argument is not deductively valid; it is always possible that my new car may turn out to be an exception. But there are several considerations that clearly matter in determining the relative strength or weakness of my inductive inference:
If you are interested, you could review the Logic steps for evaluating analogies at the link and see what you think about your "fact" that x is "just like" Andrew Sullivan and "just like" liberals.
That was the point of my original post to you. Really, to express my disagreement with your analogy, but also to point out that the fastest way to lose a debate is to spout off an analogy as "a fact."
Just because two statements may be similar, in content or impact, in no way means that the two people making those statements are similar in any way. There has to be "more," at least as far as I'm concerned, to say it's Logical to conclude that a conservative who wasn't enthused about Palin is "just like" Andrew Sullivan and "just like" a liberal. It's quite obvious that in many cases their goals and motives are the diametric opposite.
Is Ralph Nader "just like" Newt Gingrich just because they both oppose the Obama administration?
Well, her personal industry will do just fine (I mean the stuff she and Todd were doing before). The political and journalistic BS industry that limpeted onto her and the febrile minds behind it might be a very different story. In particular I predict Andrew Sullivan does a Bruce-Dern-at-the-end-of-”Coming Home”, i.e. strips off and swims out into the Atlantic sometime between Memorial Day weekend and the Fourth, now that he doesn’t have Sarah’s womb to kick around any more.
Class warfare? Geeze, what next?
Sorry, I didn’t make myself clear. What I was asking was why your point had anything to do with “millionaires and billionaires.”
Again, I wasn’t clear, and for that I apologize.
I said they are just like liberals where Palin is concerned and like Sullivan where Palin is concerned and that’s what I meant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.