Something about that Old Guard and that establishment. There’s a schedule to keep and a list of rules to follow. Apparently, Sarah Palin shredded her copy and it’s starting to rub the media the wrong way.
Despite saying dozens of times over the last year that she would eventually back the GOP nominee in her #1 mission to replace Barack Obama, apparently the media expects more.
An article written by The Hill yesterday notices: "Palin Doesn’t Mention Romney In Address To Conservative Bloggers" saying:
Former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin rallied conservative media activists for “victory in 2012” as the keynote speaker at the RightOnline conference in Las Vegas on Friday, but never mentioned the Republican Party’s presumptive presidential nominee, Mitt Romney.
Instead, Palin directed fire at her two favorite targets – President Obama and the mainstream media.
Considering who Romney’s opponent will be in November, you’d think this was enough — but apparently not.
The Daily Caller reiterates: "Sarah Palin Hasn’t Formally Endorsed Romney Yet" while they also concede that she "has made it concretely clear that she’s opposed to President Barack Obama’s re-election."
Then, this morning the snark kicked in at the Daily Caller again:
Sarah Palin has become increasingly irrelevant, but her endorsement still remains sought after by GOP candidates. And Mitt Romney has yet to become a recipient of her beneficence, reports TheDC’s Alex Pappas.
Sounds to me like some are starting to get a little grumpy. First, it is absurd to suggest someone is "increasingly irrelevant" (especially with a blog owned by an "increasingly irrelevant" pundit known solely for his abundant collection of bow ties) when you’re beginning the top of the page of your precious blog space to mention it. If that in and of itself isn’t enough to disprove their claim of increasing irrelevance, we have Palin’s endorsing of Richard Mourdock for Senate in Indiana labeled by the Washington Post at the time as the "highest-profile endorsement yet for the primary challenger and it pits Palin against her old running-mate, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who just cut a radio ad for Lugar."
Soon afterwards a series of Johnny-Come-Latelys joined the Mourdock-backing-party — including Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum. But it is well known by now that if any one person’s endorsement carried Mourdock to the finish line, it was Governor Palin (with the help of the grassroots tea party activists in Indiana who look up to her).
Also, when Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum were endorsing the obvious winner-to-be judging by projection polls in Nebraska’s Senate race, Jon Bruning, Palin came out a week before the primary and endorsed Deb Fischer. By the end of that week (just two days later) Fischer had closed the long-time gap she had all the months prior leading up to that primary. On election day, Fischer won the primary by a healthy margin.
And the good-old-boy network in Texas was sure going strong when many outside politicians as well as Governor Rick Perry endorsed Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst for U.S. Senate. Then once again, Palin came in to save the day for Ted Cruz — a favorite among Tea Party activists in Texas who up until that point was running 12-points behind Dewhurst. Because of the Palin nod and energy Cruz garnered from that endorsement, he was able to get a huge surge of votes toward the end forcing Dewhurst into an upcoming runoff election.
So the Daily Caller apparently wants to marginalize Palin’s influence even though she continues to contradict such claims day after day after day through her actions. Why did they even report on her RightOnline speech if she was irrelevant? Why was she picked to give the speech? For the same reason she’ll be asked to give many more: the same people who are tired of being condescended to by politicians and accompanying surrogates in the media are seeing it play out through Gov. Palin. And judging by the snarkyness in this piece at the Daily Caller, I’d say it’s working splendidly without Palin having to do anything but speak with honesty about common sense conservatism and against the establishment.
Interestingly enough perhaps the most compelling part of her speech which seems to be missed in the various articles written up on it states:
Sometimes you gotta rage against the machine … to hold them accountable … Whatever the outcome is in November, please do not get co-opted by the permanent political class. Granted you will not make many friends in the Beltway or in Hollywood … or in HBO … you won’t be one of the cool kids … doggone it … aww … sometimes you’ll find yourself under the bus … but you need to stay outside of the machines … sometimes you gotta rage against it … stay outside of the political establishments in order to hold them accountable … don’t spin the GOP failures the same way the left does for President Obama.
Despite being committed to firing Barack Obama, Palin let the entire establishment know that she’s going to be on them like white on rice after November. Since we know this sole quote gets to the heart of their "increasingly irrelevant" mantra, I warn all to get ready for more — and welcome it with a smile.
I see November and a Romney win as a double-win for grassroots conservatism for the long haul. We fire Barack Obama and with Governor Palin after the election, the GOPe will no longer be able to effectively guard their own.
Update by Stacy: I find it odd that the Daily Caller and The Hill used the RightOnline conference speech as an excuse to bring up the fact that Governor Palin has not formally endorsed Mitt Romney. They both should know that the conference was hosted by Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFPF) and that the group is a 501(c)(3) organization. What does that mean? It means that nobody standing at a podium at their event can endorse a specific candidate:
Via the IRS:
The type of tax exemption determines whether an organization may endorse candidates for public office. For example, a section 501(c)(3) organization may not publish or distribute printed statements or make oral statements on behalf of, or in opposition to, a candidate for public office.
I was in attendance at the conference, and I didn’t hear one speaker mention Mitt Romney’s name. It would have violated AFPF’s tax-exempt status.