LEFTY'S LUNCHBOX 2

Stale Food for Thought – Palin for President & Related Complicity

Last November, I sent E-mails to various political show hosts and commentators, among other issues, letting them know that their coverage of a possible Sarah Palin run for president was misguided.  The applicable text of those E-mails with updated information follows. 

“Finally, while I have your undivided attention, I would like to comment on your coverage of Sarah Palin.  Although I recognize that she is somewhat of a news item and you have to provide some coverage of her exploits, it is my opinion that you are being scammed by Ms. Palin and that the suppositions of you and most of your guests that she will be a presidential candidate in 2012 are in error. 

The facts appear to support the notion that Ms. Palin wants to have the appearance of being a prospective presidential candidate because that keeps her in the news and ultimately improves her opportunities for generating income. Until she announces, which I don’t think she will, I would leave most of her coverage to the late night comedians and not give her the credibility and free publicity of a presidential candidate that she is using for the sole purpose of enriching herself.

While Ms. Palin’s personality apparently contributes, in part, to her popularity, the media created prospective candidacy for her is much more of a factor in focusing interest on her. Absent that prospective candidacy, Ms. Palin’s track record as a loser and a quitter would certainly dampen her public exposure and the interest in her, even among conservatives; undoubtedly, resulting in the generation of less income.  As it stands, the media generated speculation combined with Ms. Palin’s lack of a commitment on her presidential plans has resulted in a healthy flow of income for Ms. Palin, be it PAC money, book money, or speech money.  I saw that Todd quit his job the other day and of course Sarah, if you don’t count her book tour as employment, is also unemployed.  However, despite the media speculation to the contrary, at some time in the future Ms. Palin will announce that she can do more for the conservative movement as a noncandidate, and she will end up with her own FOX or radio show.  My conclusions are based on the following obvious facts.

1. During the 2008 election, Ms. Palin, despite her ability to wink, came to the self-realization that she lacks the intellect and qualifications to be president.

2. Absent a rebirth of the Confederacy, Ms. Palin knows that she could not win a      national election.

3. Ms. Palin has learned that her appeal as a conservative spokesperson far exceeds that of the multimillionaires, Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh; and therefore, pursuing that pot of gold is easier, less stressful, and much more lucrative than being an elected official.  Unlike the aforementioned, she is attractive, she graduated college, she has public service experience, she has a son in the military, and she has no family history of divorce or substance abuse.  These factors, combined with her ability to misstate the truth, promote fear, and have no respect for facts and scientific evidence on par with her competition, make her a very desirable and valuable conservative commodity.

4. The Palins wouldn’t want to depart Alaska on a full-time basis and have to live in Washington, D.C.

5. Not being a candidate would free Ms. Palin from the misery of nagging government investigations, regular network interviews, and invasive family probes that are normally applicable to a candidate as opposed to a tweeter or a talk show host.

6. She would be free to advocate her extreme positions on various issues to the conservative base without be intensely questioned or challenged.

I will send my apologies to you if I am wrong on this issue, but in the meantime and until she announces her candidacy, please don’t treat Sarah Palin as anything other than she is, a losing vice presidential candidate, a resigned governor, and one of many conservative talking heads pursuing a larger pot of gold.  The only result of your speculation is filling her bank account and misleading the public, neither of which appears to be a benefit for your audience or the American people.”

Well, since the date of my E-mails, the following has been reported.

1.      Ms. Palin’s income has increased from her approximately $150,000  annual salary as Governor of Alaska to $12,000,000, twelve million dollars for the last couple of years.

2.      Ms. Palin has been hired as a Fox News consultant.

3.      Ms. Palin has polled near the bottom in most of the straw polls conducted at conservative conferences.

4.      Ms. Palin does not routinely, if at all, talk to the press, other than speaking on Fox News or "tweeting."

5.      Ms. Palin spends a lot of time endorsing very conservative Republicans or Tea Party candidates, combined = Carnival Party).

6.      Ms. Palin has a Discovery Channel show and wants to be on Dancing With The Stars.

Okay, so the point is made that the media politicos and experts failed to see the gold- filled forest through the trees that Ms. Palin saw.  But now, the same forest seems to reappearing for other members of the Palin gang, and once again, the media politicos and experts are either silent or again complicit.

First, we have the case of Bristol Palin.  I have two kids myself and honestly, I wish only the best for Bristol and her child.  The problem arises because Ms. Palin (Sarah) made a point of condemning the media (except Fox), and condemning “Hollywood,” and requesting that the media keep its distance from her children.  Low and behold, $300,000 from a magazine for pictures of Bristol’s baby and the potential of six figures of income for Bristol from Dancing With The Stars in “Hollywood,” and oops, there is a change in attitude.

Again, no problem, and certainly Bristol should have the right to make as much money as she can, just like her mom, the hypocrisy notwithstanding.  However, the media politicos and experts seemed to be silent on this issue, and I don’t mean the issue of Bristol, I mean the issue of Sarah Palin’s hypocrisy when it comes to sticking by her statements or abandoning them for cash.

Of course, Bristol being considered a “star” on Dancing With The Stars is a question unto itself.  It appears that Disney (Disney owns ABC), and I never put anything past Disney since they denied me entry into Disneyland in the late sixties because my hair was too long, waived its magic wand and deemed Bristol a “star.”  This is analogous to the media politicos and experts crowning Sarah as presidential material and candidate with neither conclusion being grounded in fact or logic.  In any event, I refuse to watch Dancing With The Stars this season.  When the indicted Tom DeLay was on the show a couple of seasons ago, I only watched after he was off.  In retrospect, I am happier that Bristol is on the show than Ann Coulter who Disney also offered a spot. You would think that Disney is owned by Fox.

Last, but not least, and perhaps most disturbing, is the case of Levi Johnston, formerly of the Palin gang.

Last week, Levi was one of the featured interviews on the new Lawrence O’Donnell show on MSNBC.  This complicity with promoting the future of Levi is mind boggling and unacceptable. Lawrence O’Donnell is a smart, experienced, articulate liberal politico with a first class resume that far exceeds even mine. Why in the world he had Levi Johnston on his program is beyond me unless he is trying to compete with the “E” Channel.

It is true that Levi, aside from his “Hollywood” adventures and magazine layouts, confirmed on O’Donnell’s show that he is a candidate for the Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, and prospective recipient of a GED (like Bristol, he dropped out of high school).  I don’t know if this information made Mr. O’Donnell smarter or the audience smarter given O’Donnell’s show promo of, “Tell me something that makes me smarter or my audience smarter and you get the last word.”  What the featured interview did do is give Levi more exposure, so like Ms. Palin and Bristol, he can enrich himself by using the naïve and complicit media. 

I am sure that Mr. O’Donnell is aware that there are a lot of hardworking young politicos doing volunteer work while struggling to pay for college, or others trying to receive recognition or support for a student newspaper, or others attempting to organize a fundraiser for a good cause or raise money for a piano for their music department.  Consequently, I would suggest to Mr. O’Donnell that his viewers might learn something more from these individuals or about the good hearts of these individuals if they were featured on his show instead of Levi Johnston.  So next time, decline the interview with the Palin gang member or ex-member, and feature someone who has something more to contribute than “I don’t know, but I will return next year.”

In conclusion, as a request to the media politicos and experts, especially the alleged liberal and progressive individuals, feed the audience the facts and truths and avoid being scammed or becoming part of the scam.  We don’t need your opinion if you think someone is attractive looking or has “moxie” as Chris Matthew’s is fond of stating.  He hasn’t even taken Sarah Palin’s picture off his program logo yet. Do the tough interviews and ask the relevant questions that will result in the viewing public knowing more than they knew before.  I have seen you do it in the past, and I hope you can stick to such a script in the future.  However, if I hear your speculation that Christine O’Donnell has the look and potential to run for president if she studies hard, gets married and confiscates all of Bill Maher’s videotapes, I will lose my lunch.