2008 Elections

Mitt Romney’s biggest brand

The Republican contender sells himself as the ultimate presidential product. But will America embrace a bona fide corporate candidate?

  • more
    • All Share Services

Mitt Romney's biggest brand

Corporate wizard Willard Mitt Romney has entered the next phase of his presidential initial public offering: Appearing in shirt-sleeves.

As he comes out before a town hall crowd of about 200 in early June, his suit jacket is missing, his pleated pants ride high and his starched white cuffs are turned twice on each wrist — not rolled to the elbow like those of a working man or George W. Bush, but just a few inches up the arms, far enough to show that he is not wearing a Rolex. He has been campaigning all weekend in Iowa, eight public events in three days, and his local spokesman says that the jacket started coming off on Saturday, which coincidentally was the same day that the New York Times ran a front-page story with the headline “Romney Struggles to Connect on Stump.”

Romney’s appearance sans jacket tells the story of that struggle. For 25 years, he conquered corporate America, a place where the suits hang perfectly, the silk ties have tight knots and the presentations come in PowerPoint. Now he is campaigning to lead the Western world, and the rules are different. It is not enough to simply have a set of strategies or the most powerful financiers. He has to become someone people can believe in. He has to step outside his suit and appear to be more than just another rich guy. Though he currently leads the GOP in fundraising and the New Hampshire and Iowa polls, this is still a work in progress.

“In the private sector, things get better,” the former Massachusetts governor tells the Muscatine crowd, his suitless shoulders looking narrow, his arm holding the microphone at a perfect right angle. “You make better products year after year, or you are going to go out of business, because your competitor will do a better job. You don’t make something better, someone else will.”

This is the Romney ethos. He is building a better presidential candidate: New and Improved! Smoother, Smarter and Stronger! Devoted and Effective! Ready to Lead!

Unlike John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, Romney says what a plurality of Republicans want to hear about every issue, whether it be abortion, immigration or the war in Iraq. He appears passionate about the things Republicans are passionate about. He looks like a president should look. He has a family cut from a television sitcom. He does everything he is apparently supposed to do. Ask him a question, and there is a pause before his answer — he seems to search the files in his brain, double-checking that he is not making a mistake. Then he delivers sentences straight from a memory bank of sound bites.

Immigration? “I love legal immigration. I want to end illegal immigration. This is not rocket science.” Energy problems? “We are going to spend whatever it takes to rid America of its dependence on foreign oil.” The war on terror? “We’ll beat the jihadists by supporting moderate Islam and having a strong military.” Gay marriage? “Marriage is primarily an institution for the development and nurturing of children, and therefore I would restrict marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman.”

Back in February, the Boston Globe obtained a Romney campaign PowerPoint that explained the “Primal Code for Brand Romney.” It said he would campaign as the anti-John Kerry, even though Romney has changed positions at least as many times as the last man to be labeled a “flip-flopper from Massachusetts.” It called for Romney to contrast himself with France, even though he spent his formative years as a Mormon missionary in Paris and Bordeaux. It targeted the “European-style socialism” of Hillary Clinton, even though Romney passed a statewide program mandating private health insurance for every citizen.

For months now, Romney’s rivals have been trying to use these contradictions to put a dent in his full head of frosted hair. They point out that Romney voted for Paul Tsongas in the Democratic primary in 1992, before he registered as a Republican. He supported abortion rights before he opposed them. He supported gay rights before he campaigned against gay marriage. He favored waiting periods for gun purchases before he joined the National Rifle Association. He liked campaign finance reform until he decided not to like it.

Most of these critiques miss the point: There is a solid core to Romney’s character. He is at the deepest level an accomplished capitalist, efficient and effective, who has defined himself through the decades by giving the marketplace what it wants. All campaigns try to turn their candidates into a product. Romney distinguishes himself by attempting to eliminate any difference between that product he has created and the person he really is. Behind all the flashy direct-mail pieces and television spots, there remains a man who fundamentally relates to the world as a series of spreadsheets to be analyzed. “Mitt Romney,” the PowerPoint reads, burrowing into the heart of the brand, “tested, intelligent, get-it-done, turnaround CEO governor and strong leader.” But it is unclear whether America will embrace a bona fide corporate candidate.

On the stump in Iowa and New Hampshire earlier this month, Romney was most comfortable and persuasive when he entered the mode of chief executive. He can lucidly parse complex economic data, like the share of the gross national product that goes to military spending, U.S. economic growth rates or his plan to cap federal growth at “inflation minus 1 percent.” He can be passionate about currency policy, the need for improved education to compete with China, and America’s economic future in a globalizing world. “I think the way a smaller nation, like us, stays ahead of a much larger nation, let’s say India or China,” he said at one stop, “is just by having superior technology and innovation. That’s how you stay ahead forever.”

If you took every American president since William Taft and put them in a room, they would still probably have less collective business experience than Romney alone. Herbert Hoover worked as an international mining consultant. Jimmy Carter was a peanut farmer. The current President Bush got a Harvard MBA, but his only real success was financially reviving a mediocre baseball team. By comparison, Romney is a business god. As an investor, he helped build up brands like Staples, Duane Reade and Domino’s Pizza. He bought and sold companies that made paper, bicycles, bowling alleys and surgical instruments. A few years ago, an analyst at Deutsche Banc calculated the profitability of Bain Capital, the private equity firm Romney ran from 1984 to 1999. It listed the rate of return at 173 percent per year. The U.S. stock market historically grows at an annual average of about 11 percent.

But his strength is also his weakness. What dazzles in the boardroom fizzles on the campaign trail. Consider, for example, Romney’s penchant for mathematical metaphors. “Null set,” he said at the Republican debate on June 5 in Manchester, in a bizarre and cryptic response to a simple question about Iraq. The next day he spoke to employees of a manufacturing firm in Hudson, N.H. “I think we face as a nation one of these great, if you will, inflection points,” he said. A few minutes later, he tried to connect with the working man: “I went to high school just like you guys did.”

The next stop was Concord High School, where he was asked a question by a moppy-haired kid, wearing a camouflage baseball cap, a basketball jersey and a set of stereo headphones around his neck. Romney, in geeky dad mode, tried to make a joke with — of course — another fiscal metaphor. “You seem to be a known commodity here,” he said, breaking a cardinal rule of high school: Never admire someone else’s cool in public. The auditorium of teenagers mumbled a confused response. A couple of hours later, he was back in Manchester for another “Ask Mitt Anything” town hall meeting. A man took the microphone to say that his brother is serving in Iraq, and then asked what Romney will do to build support for the war on terrorism.

“Thank you. First of all,” said Romney, “I hope that by the time — if I am lucky enough to be elected president — by the time I’m there, that the surge has worked.” Then he realized his mistake. He drew too quickly from the memory bank of sound bites, and ignored the emotional weight of the man’s question. “First of all, as well,” he corrected himself, “Thank you [to] you and your family for the sacrifice of your brother. We appreciate every person who serves our nation.”

There is little doubt that Romney will soon learn to avoid such mistakes. It is part of his DNA — improve the product, or go out of business. So the jacket came off in Iowa 10 days later. Next he might loosen the tie. The metrics are constantly monitored. After spending more than $2 million on television spots in early voting states, he is ahead in the polls, and his business connections have rocketed him to the front of the fundraising race by banking $23 million in the first quarter. “We do employ models of business efficiency,” explains Kevin Madden, Romney’s campaign spokesman. “The governor’s leadership style sets an example for how the campaign operates … Rather than sticking to the old campaign models of ‘spending money,’ instead we look at how we can invest our resources to yield a greater return.”

But success in the primaries is far from certain. Voters think a lot more about choosing a president than choosing a diet cola. In Massachusetts, Romney was derided by the Boston Globe for being “Slick Willard.” In the New York Times, he has been called “Governor Perfect.” Voters, or maybe just journalists, want flaws. They want a human. As it stands, Romney’s greatest failing is that he is afraid to show himself off script. In Iowa, his handlers kept reporters at a distance through multiple stops. The message was clear: Don’t disrupt the choreography.

Then, in Muscatine, a local television news lady tried to break the rules. She simply walked up to Romney with her cameraman after the event, while he was shaking voters’ hands. His Iowa spokesman swore under his breath and rushed across the room, but by the time he got there, Romney’s security had already intervened. The question went unanswered. Romney, still smiling, moved on.

This was on Father’s Day, an occasion when the campaign released an oddly intimate 13-minute video of the Romney family Christmas vacation last year. On the Romney campaign Web site, his five grown sons posted a message to their father. “We are so proud of you,” they wrote. Then they posted their father’s e-mailed reply: “We sure are proud of you! Love Dad.” Maybe this is the way the Romney family really interacts, but it’s hard to know for sure.

So little in his campaign is being left to chance. If Romney has nothing to hide, if he really is the altruistic executive he claims to be, then at some point he is going to have to drop his guard, put down the PowerPoint and face the voters as himself. Only then will America know if the master of the boardroom deserves a chair in the Oval Office.

Michael Scherer is Salon's Washington correspondent. Read his other articles here.

Nicolle Wallace’s Palin lesson: Make better stunt Veep picks

A running mate should be prepared, and maybe not about to be indicted (according to rumors)

  • more
    • All Share Services

Nicolle Wallace's Palin lesson: Make better stunt Veep picksNicolle Wallace (Credit: ABC)

“Game Change” is a movie about how longtime Republican Party communications hack Nicolle Wallace and longtime Republican Party campaign hack Steve Schmidt actually have souls, and brains, and hence feel quite bad for accidentally being responsible for the creation of Sarah Palin, national monster. (Neither felt any qualms about working to get the most irresponsible warmonger currently serving in the Senate elected president, but Sarah Palin was nuts!)

So Wallace, following a 92nd Street Y panel last night, said this:

“There will be pressure to elevate a woman but there will be an equal amount of pressure to pick someone who is prepared,” Wallace said.

And then she said this:

Wallace flagged one female official in particular who she thinks would be a good choice this year.

“Nikki Haley — she’s great,” she said. “She’s the most effective surrogate Romney has.”

If the Sarah Palin problem was a problem of preparation and vetting, Haley … might present some issues? Specifically an odd and mostly unsubstantiated sex scandal and also these rumors that she might at any moment be indicted on tax charges. The tax thing might be bullshit and the affair story was the product of a self-promoting creep but they’re “out there,” as they say.

More important, Haley has been governor of South Carolina since January of 2011. As in very slightly longer than one year. And slightly less time being a governor than Sarah Palin had in 2008. It’s almost as if Wallace is making a pick not based on the principle of Who Would Be Best For the Nation but on demographics and optics?

Wallace also apparently suggested Carly Fiorina, which, lol. Romney/Ex-CEO who famously received a giant golden parachute when she was forced out of her company 2012, everyone! Just the ticket for the new economy.

Continue Reading Close
Alex Pareene

Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene

Sarah Palin’s Hollywood ending

HBO's "Game Change" presents Palin as simply a bumbling Tina Fey -- and misses the real story of the 2008 campaign

  • more
    • All Share Services

Sarah Palin's Hollywood endingJulianne Moore as Sarah Palin in HBO's "Game Change" (Credit: HBO Films)

HBO’s “Game Change,” airing this Saturday, is not actually an adaption of the book “Game Change,” by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann. It is “Sarah Palin Goes Rogue,” the movie, with a couple of anecdotes borrowed from the notoriously gossipy account of the 2008 election as a whole. (Or, arguably, it’s an adaptation of Scott Conroy and Shushannah Walshe’s “Sarah From Alaska.”)

That is sort of a shame. The Palin thing is the most heavily over-covered story line of the entire 2008 campaign, so focusing on it might be totally logical from a marketing perspective, but it’s unfortunate from an artistic one. The film re-creates various moments of YouTube campaign ephemera very well — remember when that old white lady called Obama an Arab and McCain looked uncomfortable? When it takes us behind closed doors, it’s to witness scenes any moderately close observer of the election and its aftermath could’ve dreamed up him- or herself. It might have been fun to see a TV movie about the Democratic primary fight; the personality clashes of the disastrous Clinton campaign would have made for entertaining television, and Mark Penn is surely a creature crying out for a grotesque Emmy-winning portrayal by, say, Paul Giamatti.

Instead, McCain has won the nomination three-and-a-half minutes into the film. Soon we’re watching Julianne Moore watch Tina Fey on TV. You remember the “SNL” sketches making fun of Palin, right? In case you don’t, “Game Change” airs lengthy chunks from most of them. It also has tons of actual footage from CNN and MSNBC and Fox News, and it re-creates debates and speeches and the Couric interview and the Charlie Gibson interview and a bunch of other things you saw either live or on YouTube when they happened.

Moore’s performance is not just fair but maybe even flattering. (For one thing, she doesn’t hit those flat upper Midwest vowels as gratingly as the real Palin.) Woody Harrelson plays strategist Steve Schmidt — the film’s protagonist — as a grizzled, “too old for this shit” campaign veteran called back to the trail against his better judgment. Jamey Sheridan is given barely anything to do as Mark Salter, McCain’s “conscience.” Salter, the primary author of his “Maverick” mythos, is limited, after the Palin selection, to making a hilariously over-telegraphed face of concern as everyone else in the war room applauds her first speech.

But the film is about Schmidt and Nicolle Wallace because they were pretty clearly Halperin and Heilemann’s primary sources, and we watch them become horrified by the depths of Sarah Palin’s ignorance at exactly the same time as everyone else in America became horrified by her ignorance.

Because it’s Hollywood, there’s very little politics in the film’s depiction of politics. Policies are simply things for Sarah Palin to write on note cards and not memorize. Operatives confidently declare, in faux Sorkin-ese patter, that if this or that meaningless decision is made, it means “we’ll lose by five.”

There is a sheen of faux cynicism (McCain swears like a sailor!) but it masks complete naiveté: Everyone is basically honorable and decent. Nicolle Wallace — a member of the Bush administration communications team — is sincerely alarmed at the prospect of someone as dangerously ignorant as Sarah Palin in the White House. On election night, she breaks down in tears as she admits to Schmidt that … she didn’t vote. They embrace.

The film subscribes to the simplest theory of Sarah Palin: That she is childlike, vain and incredibly ignorant but also an essentially decent person and wonderful mother. The moments that come closest to “unfair” — Sarah Palin doesn’t know that the head of Great Britain’s government is the prime minister, not the queen — are basically plausible. This isn’t Andrew Sullivan’s conniving, dangerous pathological liar. It’s an overwhelmed working mother whose most unhinged moments are explained by a crash diet. Her convention speech is largely stripped of its snarling attack lines, imagining a world in which it appealed to “the base” because of Palin’s heartfelt commitment to special-needs children and not because she was very good at saying mean things about Obama. (The film actually repeats the bullshit story that her teleprompter broke midway through, and she kept going.) Even when the film has her take a major heel turn — “if I am single-handedly carrying this campaign, I am gonna do what I want!” — after “winning” her debate with Joe Biden (played by video footage of Joe Biden), she is still basically an innocent seduced by the adoration of riled-up crowds and national attention. (Todd Palin barely does anything.)

The constant use of actual news footage adds a bit of verisimilitude but also constantly raises the question of why this lightly fictionalized version of the election actually needs to exist. “Game Change” is not really for serious political junkies, who remember all the stuff that did happen and will scoff at the stuff that didn’t. (At one point, John McCain answers his ringing iPhone in the middle of the night. He used a BlackBerry, HBO.) But if casually politically involved people want to see their assumptions about Sarah Palin reinforced, well, there are still those “SNL” sketches.

In the end, the Republican operatives who foisted Sarah Palin on an unprepared nation are rightly horrified that they created a monster, but at no point does anyone act concerned that their actual candidate was himself an angry, warmongering old crank with extremely fungible principles. Sure, Sarah Palin didn’t know what the Fed did. Do we have any proof John McCain knew what it should’ve done? Maybe everyone actually was totally unfair to poor Sarah Palin.

Continue Reading Close
Alex Pareene

Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene

Baseless Condi Rice speculation making a comeback

Updated: To celebrate its return, a brief history of this variety of pundit fantasy writing

  • more
    • All Share Services

Baseless Condi Rice speculation making a comebackCondoleezza Rice (Credit: Reuters)

[UPDATED BELOW] Joseph Curl, former White House correspondent for the Washington Times, is bringing me back to the good old days of 2006 in his latest opinion column for the conservative paper. It’s a breathless report that Condoleezza Rice will seek the vice presidency, and it’s a classic of the genre.

Any amateur can speculate that Chris Christie will enter the presidential race, or posit a Mike Bloomberg third-party run, or imagine Hillary Clinton launching a primary challenge against Barack Obama. After all, those three have actually won elections and expressed political ambitions. It takes a real pro to decide to build buzz around someone who not only hasn’t ever run for anything, but who’s never expressed a desire to run for anything.

Rice, the national security advisor in George W. Bush’s first presidential term and secretary of state in his second, is currently a professor at Stanford with the requisite right-wing think tank fellowship. She has not said or done anything “political” in years. But Curl has been hearing things!

America’s first black female secretary of state is quietly positioning herself to be the top choice of the eventual Republican presidential nominee, ready to deliver bona fide foreign-policy credentials lacking among the candidates. The 56-year-old has recently raised her profile, releasing her memoir in November and embarking on a monthlong book tour.

After 2 1/2 years as a professor at Stanford, Miss Rice is reportedly getting “antsy” to get back into the political game. “She’s ready to go,” said one top source.

Oh, a month-long tour in support of her book about her time in the Bush administration! She must be running for vice president, along with Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney and Scott McClellan and George W. Bush.

There’s more. (And not just the part where Curl calls Rice “a spicy Rice dish” and waxes fetishistic about “her guns” being “a match for those of our first lady Michelle Obama.”)

Plus, her selection would be a giant chess move to counter the expected replacement of Vice President Joseph R. Biden with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Sure, the White House denies and denies, but that should really make any political watcher more suspicious. One White House insider even told me that the position swap was the only reason Mrs. Clinton joined the administration in the first place.

Curl has so many inside scoops packed into this column! I had no idea that our first presidential running mate swap since Ford’s 1976 campaign was basically a foregone conclusion and not just a weird Beltway journalist fantasy! But yes, I can see why the still  un-chosen GOP candidate would definitely be looking pretty closely at Rice — who’s been strongly making the case for her selection by not explicitly denying interest in the position — in case Obama replaces Biden with Clinton, which he will surely do.

The column gets worse (“Funny thing is, she is, unlike Barack Obama, an ‘American black’”) but that’s not really important. What’s important is exploring how someone like Condoleezza Rice ends up a perennial name on the fantasy ticket list.

Rice has been a subject of these columns since 2005, when she became Bush’s second secretary of state, and the White House tasked communications operative Jim Wilkinson — previously known best for inventing the false story of Jessica Lynch* — with getting Rice (and her boss) some much-needed positive press. Wilkinson did his job beautifully (remember when Rice’s knee-high boots were a topic of actual serious news coverage for weeks?) and Rice began receiving the “rock star” treatment.

In the Washington Post, Glenn Kessler, author of the 2007 Rice bio “The Confidante,” summarized the exact moment of the birth of the presidential speculation:

In March 2005, before Rice sat for an interview with the Washington Times, Wilkinson slipped a note to the editorial page editor, Tony Blankley, suggesting that she be asked whether she would consider running for president. It was an audacious proposal — she had been secretary for only six weeks — but such speculation would bolster Rice’s image as a leader. (Wilkinson and Blankley said they do not recall the incident, but others present said they saw Wilkinson’s note.)

Oh, the Washington Times.

Shortly thereafter, Dick Morris wrote a book claiming — nay, insisting — that 2008 would be “Condi vs. Hillary.”

As Iraq descended into a violent civil war in 2006, Rice-for-president buzz bizarrely grew. There was enough of a false grass-roots movement for a paint-by-numbers AP trend piece with a silly nickname and everything. Tim Russert asked her point blank. As always, she said no in no uncertain terms.

Then, of course, everyone began to speculate that she’d be McCain’s running mate. Robert Novak claimed as much on Fox. Dan Senor said she was pushing for the pick on some Sunday show. Hendrik Hertzberg wrote a Talk of the Town piece on the subject! McCain and Rice both finally denied “reports” that she was angling for the spot on the ticket.

Now, I guess, it’s time to start up the rumor mill anew.

But before you put pen to paper on that column about how a Gingrich-Rice ticket would surely win moderate women in Ohio, consider this: In addition to the fact that she’s always denied wanting the job, and in addition to the fact that she was an unmitigated failure in the Bush administration, downplaying terrorism as a priority prior to 9/11 and selling the public on the Iraq invasion with untruths, Condi Rice is pro-choice.

*Update: Jon Krakauer recently rescinded his claim that Wilkinson, then a communications aide to General Tommy Franks, was responsible for the initial false Washington Post report on Lynch’s apparent heroics before her capture. Though Wilkinson was obviously involved in the PR campaign surrounding Lynch’s rescue and return to the U.S., he apparently isn’t responsible for falsifying her actions or leaking that false story to the press.

Continue Reading Close
Alex Pareene

Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene

Breitbart shock: Obama was in same place at same time as New Black Panthers

Right-wingers once again try to connect the president to a fringe group of laughable conservative boogeymen

  • more
    • All Share Services

Breitbart shock: Obama was in same place at same time as New Black PanthersMembers of the New Black Panther Party, including, Divine Allah, left, arrive for funeral services for 13-year-old shooting victim, Tamrah Leonard, at the Friendship Baptist Church in Trenton, N.J., Saturday, June 13, 2009. (Credit: AP/Mike Derer)

Andrew Breitbart’s loud, dumb BigGovernment site has a loud, dumb story about how Barack Obama “appeared and marched with the New Black Panther Party in 2007.” The occasion was the 42nd anniversary of the march from Selma, Alabama, and in addition to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Al Sharpton were also there, along with dozens of civil rights era luminaries and thousands of other people because it was a massive annual celebration and not actually an Obama campaign event.

The New Black Panther Party is a cartoonish fringe group of a couple guys who play “’60s radical” dress-up and say mean things about whitey for Fox cameras in order to scare old white people. They have been explicitly rejected by the old Black Panther Party. For some reason, various conservatives have dedicated themselves to proving that this weird, marginal group of Nation of Islam cast-offs is somehow supported by or deeply connected to the Democratic Party and the Obama administration in particular, because, you know, Eric Holder and Barack Obama, those are two guys who very obviously share the values of extremist anti-white proponents of racial separation.

So Breitbart “proves” something or other about the essential anti-white racistness of the Obama campaign by noting that members of the inane New Black Panther Party were spotted by cameras near Obama, at various times, and also NBPP head Malik Zulu Shabazz spoke at the event.

(Brietbart goes on to publish two pictures of the event despite the photographer withholding permission, because “The First Amendment allows photographs of such enormous public importance to see the light of day.” Good luck with that argument in court?)

Andrew C. McCarthy gleefully endorses Breitbart’s story in a breathless post at the National Review’s The Corner:

This is a shocking story, and a breathtaking indictment of the mainstream media which went out of its way to avoid vetting Obama as a candidate — and to make sure anyone who tried to do due diligence got no sunshine. A candidate who chose to appeared in the company of, say, the KKK, would have provoked relentlessly hostile media coverage and, in short order, have been marginalized as disqualified to hold responsible elective office.

If only the media had reported that some fringe weirdos also participated in this event that both Democratic candidates and thousands of other people participated in, and then the fringe weirdos sort of followed Obama around for a while. That would’ve opened America’s eyes! (I mean the media besides NPR, which did report that the NBPP was there.)

Here’s the bit of this sad, desperate reach that is the saddest and most desperate: “Andrew further reminds us that, in March 2008, the Obama campaign website posted an endorsement of Obama by the New Black Panther Party.” Whoa, did they really? Shocking if true! It is, of course, not true. It was a user-generated blog post on the Obama campaign site that the campaign removed as soon as they became aware of its existence. Because websites do not “post” things to themselves, generally, McCarthy’s statement can’t even be charitably described as technically accurate. It’s just a lie.

A random stupid incorrect Breitbart smear is worth paying attention to only to the extent that the smear threatens to bubble up to the more reputable conservative press, or Fox, or Republican elected officials. The McCarthy endorsement means keep an eye on this one!

Continue Reading Close
Alex Pareene

Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene

Palins give free publicity to book bashing Palins

Joe McGinniss' "The Rogue" gets a big marketing boost from its subject's classic (and predictable) overreaction

  • more
    • All Share Services

Palins give free publicity to book bashing PalinsSarah Palin

Here, according to the National Enquirer, are the shocking revelations in Joe McGinniss’ new book about Sarah Palin, “The Rogue”:

  • She has done drugs.
  • She had sex with a basketball player before she married Todd.
  • She is mean and petty.
  • She is a bad mother.
  • She had an affair after she married Todd.

There is also, obviously, some stuff about Trig’s birth, but I have not yet read the book, so I couldn’t tell you how far down the rabbit hole that goes.

Here’s my reaction to those revelations: Sarah Palin is a person! She’s done drugs and pissed people off and slept with people, like 90 percent of American humans. If Sarah Palin was smart she’d dismiss the book with a chuckle, say nobody’s perfect, laugh off the “gossip,” and move on.

Sarah Palin might not be smart.

The Palins always prefer grand self-pitying martyrdom to quiet dignity, of course, which is why picking on them can be so profitable: They will always respond, and always help you drum up more publicity for your Palin-attacking venture. Instead of depriving the book of oxygen, they launched a multimedia attack on Joe McGinniss before he’d finished the first draft, and what they accomplished was … giving him more material and ensuring that even more breathless anticipation awaited the book’s release.

Now that the book’s rollout is underway, the Palins might as well get paid for their marketing efforts. Todd Palin angrily denounced it, again accusing McGinniss of having a “creepy obsession” with Sarah Palin. Oooh, it’s so creeeepy to write an unauthorized biography of a prominent public figure, right?

How bad did the Palins allowed themselves to be trolled? Sarah Palin’s people released a statement on behalf of Brad Hanson, Todd Palin’s former business partner, with whom Sarah Palin is alleged to have carried on an extramarital affair, some years back. The statement is a blanket denial, but what does having the supposed beau directly address the press accomplish, exactly? It just drives more interest in the book’s salacious, shocking revelations about the secret life of Sarah Palin. This guy, of all guys, should be kept out of it.

I am sure that Todd and everyone else is very personally pissed off that McGinniss went to Wasilla, talked to a bunch of people who hate them, and published a book full of stories about how bad and awful they are, but blowing up publicly just sends the message that there’s stuff in the book worth getting worked up about.

Continue Reading Close
Alex Pareene

Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene

Page 1 of 602 in 2008 Elections