Posted on 02/10/2012 7:13:17 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Since she was plucked from relative obscurity by John McCain to be his vice presidential candidate, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has been at the top of the American political scene.
Recently, however, the ebb and flow of the primary season has called into question whether her political star has faded.
During the heat of the primary battles, all of the air in the Republican-conservative-Tea Party balloon has been sucked up -- appropriately, by the candidates.
Since 2008 that air was the oxygen that fueled the Palin super nova.
The prospect of going from Momma Grizzly to political also-ran has prompted Palin to inject herself into the nomination process in order to remain relevant.
However, instead of throwing her weight behind one candidate, Palin has chosen to walk a tightrope and strike a balance between being a king-maker and hedging her bets.
For example, she endorsed Newt Gingrich on a primary-by-primary basis in South Carolina, Florida and Nevada, but not because she thought Gingrich was the best to run the country, but rather, "to keep the process going," and allow for "additional vetting."
The high-wire act at play here is, if Palin gives a full endorsement to either Gingrich or Rick Santorum (it appears she has some apprehension about Romney), and Mitt Romney becomes the nominee or wins the November election, she could be on the outside looking in for a considerable amount of time.
But it was not so long ago when it appeared there was no limit to what Sarah Palin could accomplish, including, winning the Republican nomination.
Spring-boarding off her popularity after the 2008 election, Palin was that king-maker (or queen-maker in the case of South Carolina's Nikki Haley) with her Republican political endorsements and a rainmaker for her personal finances.
In 2009 and 2010, she published back to back best-sellers: "Going Rogue: An American Life," followed by "America by Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith, and Flag." Both books sold over three and a half million copies. Her speaking fees reportedly garner between $75,000 and $100,000.
Also, in 2010, Palin partnered with Survivor producer Mark Burnett to create a reality show: Sarah Palin's Alaska, which aired on The Learning Channel for one season.
Palin even produced a documentary, ironically titled, The Undefeated in 2011. The film chronicled Palin's political life from mayor of Wasilla to Governor of Alaska to (defeated) VP candidate.
However, Palin's ride to the top wasn't without a few bumps in the road.
Paralleling, and perhaps in a symbiotic relationship with, her ascendancy, was, what seemed like, daily ridicule from the media for, well, everything.
Her voice, choice of clothing and mostly, her intelligence became regular fodder for comedians and pundits on the left. From MSNBC to Saturday Night Live, any misstatements (e.g. Paul Revere ringing bells, firing shots) were lampooned across the alphabet soup of mainstream media venues.
The hits from the left, however, made her both a political martyr to the right and the darling of the anti-Washington Tea Party movement, only increasing her popularity.
But in mid-2011 the Palin express came to a fork in the road.
As June approached, the Republican field had started to fill out. The media and GOP voters started turning their attention to names like Romney, Pawlenty, Gingrich and Cain. In the background choruses could be heard saying: "What will Sarah do?"
Palin literally tried to keep the momentum going by embarking on a national bus tour -- a move that kept supporters wondering throughout the summer whether she would throw her hat in the ring.
The "One Nation Tour" transparently stopped in New Hampshire on the day Mitt Romney officially announced his candidacy and showed up at the Iowa State Fair just in time to coincide with the Iowa Straw Poll.
One buzz ended in early October, when Palin announced that she would not seek the 2012 nomination; but another buzz began -- "was Sarah Palin still relevant?"
Sarah Palin's political tightrope walk comes to a critical mass this weekend where she will be giving the keynote address at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, DC.
Since 2008, citing "scheduling issues," Palin has opted out of speaking at or attending CPAC -- the annual Who's Who gathering of social and economic conservatives, libertarians and Tea Partiers.
All eyes are on the former Alaska Governor at CPAC. In the build-up to the conference, attendees are watching from below as she navigates over the chasm of presidential politics one step at a time.
Will she endorse? Will she announce a late entry into the race as Bobby Kennedy did in March of 1968? Not likely on both counts.
The question for political observers is, if Palin is to continue her high-wire act, how will she do it? The answer will be whether she continues on, falls, or uses a net to save herself.
******
Jim Bellano teaches political science at Western Connecticut State University in Danbury.
For being so irrelevant, Palin sure gets under this idiot’s skin.
His next stop from West Conn State will be the West Conn State Nut House, where his mamblings will be wiped up with a drool rag...
Bellano is wrong. IIRC, she did not producer “The Undefeated” and in fact did not even see the footage or interviews in the film until it was shown in the theatre.
She didn’t want to influence the content or make the filmmaker “biased”, is what I recall reading.
Where does this professor get his information—the same place he got his degree? A box of Cracker Jacks?
Your comment is poetry!
It is pretty mind-boggling, how often I’ve encountered liberal columnists actually state that Palin herself either made “The Undefeated,” invested in it, contributed to it, or most often: she made money off it! I mean, they can’t even seem to get the most minor, rudimentary facts right when it comes to Palin. Or, more likely, they just continue to do these things on purpose to perpetuate the false imagery they themselves created.
As I understand it, other than being the subject of the film, she had absolutely nothing to do with it. Finding that out would’ve taken the professor all of 15 seconds on the Intertubes.
If someone were irrelevant to me, I wouldn’t even acknowledge their existence.
That is ONE BIG DA*M LIE.
I have the video and it was produced by Stephen K Bannon and Glenn Bracken Evans.
His e-mail address: bellanoj@wcsu.edu
Sarah, when will you step up and vigorously endorse Newt, in those words?
It’s a time for men and women to step UP and be bold. Not make calculated political decisions on how to phrase comments. It’s all in time.
Gingrich is out of it, Palin will not endorse him.
He should stick to supporting WSCU’s basketball team because he isn’t doing too well in the writing business.
Yeah, he whiffed on the documentary bit, but Palinistas (and I consider myself one) shouldn’t get bent out of shape about this type of commentary.
Virtually all of these “Is she still relevant?” articles correctly posit the assumption that she started as a leading contender for the nomination herself.
Yes, she still has influence, but they are asking whether she’ll return to the influence that she had previously. But she is a lesser player than when she was a frontrunner for the presidential nomination herself. Further, these commentaries generally ask whether she’ll rise in influence again, rather than concluding that she’s necessarily done for.
Virtually all of these “Is she still relevant?” articles correctly posit the assumption that she started as a leading contender for the nomination herself.
He oughta just change his last name to A*&hole and then he wouldn’t need a title or a bio.
ROTFL!! That was my very first thought on reading this screed.
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.