From New York magazine, a report reveals that after the Tucson domestic terrorism tragedy, Sarah Palin put in a call to Roger Ailes.
Before Sarah Palin posted her infamous “Blood Libel” video on Facebook on January 12, she placed a call to Fox News chairman Roger Ailes. In the wake of the Tucson massacre, Palin was fuming that the media was blaming her heated rhetoric for the actions of a madman that left six people dead and thirteen others injured, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.
Palin told Ailes she wanted to respond, according to a person with knowledge of the call. It wasn’t fair the media was making this about her. Ailes told Palin that she should stay quiet.
“Lie low,” he said. “There’s no need to inject yourself into the story.”
With a Fox GOP debate on May 5 in South Carolina, Sarah Palin will have another decision to make and so will Fox, because if she participates she’ll be suspended, along with Gingrich and Santorum, but if she doesn’t it doesn’t mean she isn’t still considering a run. What will Ailes do then and how long will he let Palin vamp?
This was discussed today on “Morning Joe,” with Mark Halperin (about 4:20 in the video at that link) the only one remotely understanding Palin, saying correctly that “she makes decisions based on her own perspective and not by traditional method.” Beyond that it’s a matter of ego and whether Palin can resist the convenience of the Fox News channel klieg lights.
Love him or hate his network, Mr. Ailes is a smart Republican strategist, which was proven long ago. No one has done more good for the Right or given Republicans more power than Fox News channel.
While it’s certainly understandable that Palin was “fuming” she was taking heat over her crosshairs graphic, her inability to listen to reason, while letting her ego be her guide, reveals one aspect of her political insecurity that would also make her dangerous if she ever got the power of the presidency.
After Palin’s blood-libel video fiasco, however, even if she can win the Republican nomination, which remains the case, her chance at securing the presidency has dropped significantly since Tucson.
However, some Republicans remain worried that the primary process could catapult Palin to the nomination.
Former Sen. Judd Gregg pens an extraordinary op-ed in The Hill yesterday making this case:
Because the nominating process has become so dominated by primary elections, with the vast majority of the delegates chosen by direct vote, it is entirely possible that with no presumptive winner or even favorites, a candidate who runs second or third in a great many primaries could go into the convention with a sizable block of delegates.
Who would this favor? Does Sarah Palin come to mind? Although she is not viewed by most as strong enough to win, she is viewed by many as a person worth voting for to make a statement. And primaries tend to be populated by people who go to the polls with the purpose of making a statement.
Underlying Gregg’s concern is that Republicans simply have no one in the field who can beat Barack Obama.
Conventional wisdom in establishment Republican circles is becoming that only Tim Pawlenty has a chance of winning. I think this is laughable. If anything he’d be the Michael Dukakis of the Right and lead Republicans to a devastating defeat. Actually, the only candidate who has that chance isn’t running and his name is Chris Christie.
Even with progressives disappointed with Obama’s first-term, the lesser evil option when compared to the Right remains why most Democrats inevitably come home at election time, which would expand exponentially if Sarah Palin was the nominee. As the Right targets women, and is gnashing to get at Social Security, with Republicans likely to dominate both chambers of Congress after 2012, Pres. Obama’s “lesser evil” mantle may mean more to people than disgruntled people on the Left will ever admit.
Enter Sarah Palin’s nomination for president.
Depressingly, no woman in the history of our republic has ever made it to the top of the ticket.
So, since Republicans are likely to lose to Obama anyway, wouldn’t placing the first woman on the presidential ballot, even if it’s Sarah Palin, be a signal worth sending?