Nikki Haley to be indicted for tax fraud? (update)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Updating my post from earlier today, it looks as if South Carolina Gov. (and right-wing star) Nikki Haley is not going to be indicted for tax fraud:

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley's office Friday provided IRS documentation that she is not facing investigation for tax fraud, calling accusations that she was "totally contrived."

Haley denied the rumors of a looming tax indictment on Thursday. The rumors were based on an anonymously sourced blog post alleging that the Internal Revenue Service was investigating possible tax fraud at a Sikh center where the governor's parents are top officials. The Palmetto Public Record claimed Haley managed the temple's finances as recently as 2003 and implicated her in a failure by the temple to pay contractors. The governor denied keeping the books for the church.

Well, as I wrote, innocent until proven guilty, and the rumor only came from this one relatively unknown blog, at least outside of South Carolina, the Palmetto Public Record.

Unsurprisingly, Haley has taken aim at "dirty blogger politics," a typically Palin-esque way of deflecting a crisis (or any bad news), and is also arguing (ridiculously, it seems to me) that such rumors are hurting the state's efforts to attract business investment, but actually, as The State reports, there were other reasons for speculation, and even if the IRS isn't investigating Haley personally, it is probing possible tax irregularities (to put it nicely) at her parents' Sikh temple. 

Again, there may be nothing to this. For all I know, the IRS will find, or has already found, that the temple did nothing wrong or that, even if it did, Haley didn't do anything wrong. But I do still wonder how all this will hurt Haley's national profile, if at all.

Would she have been on Romney's VP shortlist? Will she be, even now?

It's hard to see Romney going with an inexperienced young governor after the Palin debacle of '08, but she seems to be much more substantial than Palin and obviously is demographically desirable for the extremely white/male GOP.

It's certainly a possibility.

Game Change -- Palin comparison

By Mustang Bobby

As playwright Peter Stone once noted, history writes lousy drama. He should know; he was one of the authors who took on the events surrounding the writing of the Declaration of Independence and turned it into 1776, a musical. Characters and actions in real life are complicated, and coming up with a simple story arc that reveals more than just what happened means that you have to create characters that are more than just echoes of the historical figures being portrayed on the stage or screen. Put simply, you have to start from scratch and create compelling characters and situations that reflect that core of the character and their objectives.

So turning a recent event into a drama requires more than just using the film clips and transcripts of interviews or even the background from a tell-all book. That's the background, but it's up to the writer and the actor to turn the characters into something worth listening to and caring about.

The HBO film Game Change, directed by Jay Roach from a screenplay by Danny Strong, is based on the book about the 2008 presidential campaign by John Heileman and Mark Halperin. The film focuses on the selection of Sarah Palin as the vice presidential running mate for John McCain and the realization on the part of Steve Schmidt, the McCain adviser who selected her, that they had created a monster. It wasn't the fact that Gov. Palin was unaware of the basics of foreign policy or geography, didn't read newspapers, or was uncontrollable on the campaign trail. It was the fact that they had chosen someone purely to shake up the dynamics of the presidential race with little or no thought about what would happen if they won and Sarah Palin became the Vice President of the United States.

There was a lot of pre-show chatter, including a preemptive raspberry from Ms. Palin herself. Well, that's not surprising, but it's also in keeping with the fact that a movie -- even if it's "based on a true story" -- isn't going to be historically accurate. Julianne Moore isn't Sarah Palin, and for all the method acting work she did studying the character she was going to play, she could never be Sarah Palin. But what she could do is create a multi-dimensional character, showing her strengths as well as her weaknesses, and making us care about her. Ms. Moore went to great lengths to look and sound like Ms. Palin, but she also created a role that went beyond the two dimensions that we saw on the news in 2008 or heard on her bus tour last summer. It is a brilliant interpretation of a flawed and tragic character.

Woody Harrelson did a masterful job with his role of Steve Schmidt, the Svengali of the campaign who was responsible for finding the "game changer" that would turn the election away from electing a "celebrity" -- Barack Obama -- to electing John McCain... by selecting their own celebrity. Picking a running mate has always been a political ploy -- who can we get to balance the ticket? -- but never before had it been so cavalierly considered: who can we get to get a great post-convention poll bounce? At the end of the film it's apparent that Mr. Schmidt realizes what he has done to the future of American elections, and the awareness of his actions dawns on him to a degree that frankly is lost on his counterparts in real life. After all, the current election cycle is providing us with candidates who have no business running for the presidency, and they're being advised and coached by people who took their lesson from McCain-Palin 2008. (No wonder the real Steve Schmidt got out of the business.) Watching the slow realization by Mr. Schmidt that what started out as a campaign tactic and grew into a disaster both politically and historically by truly changing the political landscape from considering what happens after the election to just winning it was thrilling, and affirms my belief that Woody Harrelson is one of the most underrated actors in the business. 

The real Sarah Palin dismissed the film as "fact-free." In a way, that's a compliment; movies like this are not supposed to withstand the test of historical accuracy. (The same can be said of films that glorify characters that Ms. Palin admires such as Margaret Thatcher in The Iron Lady.) They use the events as the framing for the tales that reveal more about our true nature and what we learn about ourselves. That's the essence of drama. If you want history, Sarah, read a newspaper.

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

With friends like Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney doesn't need enemies

By Richard K. Barry

Sarah Palin and Chris Wallace

On Fox News over the weekend Sarah Palin said that she was not convinced Mitt Romney was a conservative.

In an interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday she had this to say:

I trust that his idea of conservatism is evolving. And I base this on a pretty moderate past he has had, even in some cases a liberal past.

I am not convinced. And I don't think the majority of GOP and independent voters are convinced, and that is why you don't see Romney get over the hump.

She added that "he has spent millions and millions and millions of dollars and hasn't risen yet."

Palin implied similar things during her CPAC keynote speech in which she also expressed her preference that the GOP presidential nomination process continue because it would give each contender the chance to hone their strengths and deliver a more concise message. 

Typically, I don't pay a lot of attention to Sarah Palin, but in this case she really does appear to be speaking for a sizeable segment of the conservative electorate.

Did she really say that despite the fact that Romney has been running for the GOP nomination for five years, she doesn't truly know where he stands on the issues or trust his judgement as a conservative?

Well, yes she did.

At the risk of saying the same thing over and over and over again, committed conservatives really don't like Mitt Romney and it doesn't appear that he'll ever be able to do much to change that. 

For Romney it's not so much that Palin is off side. That on it's own is probably not that big a deal. It's that Palin, a  person who gets a lot of face time on a network like Fox, is feeding the narrative that is damaging his campaign.  In football it's called piling on.

If you care, you can watch a clip of Palin rating the GOP field here.


(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Sarah Palin says Newt will "soar," but will his ex-wife's allegations finally be his undoing?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

***UPDATED BELOW***

I'm beginning to think this may be the most important single day of the 2012 Republican presidential race so far, with the race tightening in South Carolina, key conservatives backing Newt, the Marianne Gingrich interview later, another debate (possibly meaning a boost for Newt, who does so well in debates), a retro victory for Santorum in Iowa...

It may certainly be the wildest day.

Romney is still the frontrunner and likely nominee, but today may prove, in retrospect, to have been a turning point, one way or the other.

Read on...

**********

Via twitter: 

Palin: Ex-wife's allegations will help Newt "soar" (link) (story)

-- Talking Points Memo (@TPM)

Palin may be right that a lot of what Marianne Gingrich has to say is "old news," and I was thinking earlier today that the damage to Newt might be minimal if she avoided the more sordid details -- in part because those who like Newt do so not because they think he's a saint but because they think he'll punch President Obama in the face (figuratively but maybe also literally) and in part because Newt has already owned up to much of his bad behavior, "found God," and been largely absolved by conservatives.

But now I'm not so sure. The talk all day in the media is about the "open" marriage Newt wanted as a way of enabling his cheating, and basically about his self-righteous, egomaniacal bullying of his wife, about how he was out to get what he wanted, largely disregarded her, and ruined her life. This wasn't just bad behavior. This was abuse.

There are still many who will excuse him his ugly transgressions, like Palin and Dear Leader Rush (who thinks Newt's a victim), but there are surely a lot more, even among Republicans, who will recoil in disgust.

There may yet be a way for him to get out of this -- by admitting again to some things, denying others; by saying he really is a different and better person now; by using it as an occasion to bash the media (always a favotite Newt deflectional tactic); by taking the high road with respect to his wife (I loved her, she's a great person, but we had our problems, common to many married couples) while implying that she's crazy, a liar, or both; by alleging that Romney's behind this "attack" somehow, just days before the South Carolina primary -- but it's getting more and more difficult to see how this doesn't hurt him badly, if not destroy what's left of his campaign.

And somewhere, whether he's behind this or not, Romney, who otherwise has been having a terrible day (Santorum certified the winner in Iowa; Perry dropping out and endorsing Newt; new polls showing his lead dwindling rapidly in South Carolina, and even Newt ahead; Newt getting a big-time Tea Party endorsement; another debate coming up tonight, another occasion for Newt to shine), must surely be thinking he's one of the luckiest people in the world.

If he isn't, he should be. As terribly weak as he is, everything seems to be breaking his way, with the nomination all but his by default.

UPDATES:

I see Jon Chait has a post up on Romney's run of incredible luck (or incredible run of luck, however you want to look at it):

Everything has gone Romney’s way. A slew of credible opponents all declined to run, or dropped out prematurely (poor, poor Tim Pawlenty.) He was mistakenly credited with winning the Iowa caucuses. The opponents who have challenged him all self-destructed, and when persistent unease with Romney resurrected them, they self-destructed again.

Yup.

**********

Here's the full Palin quote, via ThinkProgress:

I call them dumbarses. They, thinking that by trotting out this old Gingrich divorce interview that's old news — and it does feature a disgruntled ex, claiming that it would destroy his campaign — all it does, Sean, is incentive conservatives and independents who are so sick of the politics of personal destruction, because it’s played so selectively by media, that their target, in this case Newt, he’s now going to soar even more. Because we know the game now, and we just won't put up with it.

So, good call media! Way to go to covertly hype this, even Gingrich opponents, for being so brilliant they sure are dumb. 

Ah, yes, when in doubt, attack the media. But even if the media is guilty of taking advantage of a salacious story, Marianne Gingrich isn't the media. She has every right to be heard.

**********

ABC News reports on the interview:

Newt Gingrich lacks the moral character to serve as President, his second ex-wife Marianne told ABC News, saying his campaign positions on the sanctity of marriage and the importance of family values do not square with what she saw during their 18 years of marriage.

In her first television interview since the 1999 divorce, to be broadcast tonight on Nightline, Marianne Gingrich, a self-described conservative Republican, said she is coming forward now so voters can know what she knows about Gingrich. 

As I suggest above in how Newt can effectively respond to all this, he is indeed taking the high road, with his two daughters from his first marriage providing useful cover:

Gingrich declined to comment to ABC News for this report, but told NBC's Today Show Thursday morning he would not "say anything negative about Marianne."

"Now, I'll let my daughters speak for it... I'm not going to comment beyond that because I'm focused on the big issues that concern the American people, which are the current challenges we have, largely because of the failure of the Obama presidency," he said.

It's not terribly responsible of him to let his daughters be his surrogates on such a deeply personal matter, but he's obviously doing what he can to minimize the likely negative impact of the story. And you can see how he's trying to minimize the importance of the story and trying to position himself as above it all, and trying to guilt the media into not taking it seriously -- what do his past marital problems matter compared to "the big issues that concern the American people"?

I'm not sure it'll work, but it's all he's got.

Newt gets Palin's endorsement... sort of... well, not really... but maybe...

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As she told Hannity:

I can tell you what I would do if I were a South Carolinian... If I were a South Carolinian though, and each one of these primaries and caucuses are different, Sean, I want to see this thing continue because iron sharpens iron. Steel sharpens steel. These guys are getting better in their debates. They are getting more concise. They are getting more grounded in what their beliefs are and articulating what their ideas are for getting America back on the right track and getting Americans working again. If I had to vote in South Carolina order to keep this thing going, I would vote for Newt and I would want it to continue. More debates, more vetting of candidates.

So it's a qualified endorsement, at most. Unlike Todd, Sarah isn't decidedly pro-Newt, but clearly he's generally to her liking -- likely more than Romney is:

I do think that Newt is the one that won the debate if you will, because Newt came out like South Carolina's own Smokin' Joe Frazier. He came out there swinging, talking about work, talking about jobs and work ethic and how government needs to get out of the way in order for all Americans to have a sense of opportunity to work, and I think that's what a lot of voters have been craving to hear.

So why not just endorse him already? Doesn't she have, or think she has, significant influence over the Republican electorate, and specifically over the right-wing base? Why not give poor Newt the boost he needs to emerge as the clear anti-Romney, particularly as he's calling Santorum and Perry to get the hell out?

Can't she play kingmaker for once?

Oh right, she can't. Because, unlike the media, Republicans really don't pay her that much attention.

Todd Palin endorses Gingrich. And we should care because...?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The race for the Republican nomination for president has been nothing if not embarrassing to the GOP, not to mention to the rather less-than-stellar candidates themselves.

And today witnessed yet another low.

On the totem pole of endorsers, after all, Todd Palin makes even non-witch anti-masturbator Christine O'Donnell look respectable. (Check that. Todd's above COD. At least an endorsement from him can be interpreted as a signal of Sarah's thinking. An endorsement from COD means a crazy person likes you. But there's still little reason to care.)

Newt must be ecstatic.

**********

Perhaps to his credit, Todd didn't criticize any of the other candidates. So why did he pick Newt?

Palin said he has not spoken to Gingrich or anyone from the former House speaker's campaign. But he said he respects Gingrich for what he went through in the 1990s and compared that scrutiny in public life to what Sarah Palin went through during her run for the vice presidency.

*****


But Todd Palin did point to last summer, when a large portion of Gingrich's staff resigned and the candidate was left, largely by himself, to run the campaign.

Gingrich's ability to overcome the obstacle and still move up in the polls showed his ability to campaign and survive, according to Todd Palin, who said Gingrich is not one of the typical "beltway types" and that his campaign has "burst out of the political arena and touched many Americans."

In other words, because Newt is like Sarah. 

Yes, even when endorsing others, the Palins are self-aggrandizing egomaniacs.

Palin hints at (very late) 2012 run

By Michael J.W. Stickings (@mjwstickings)

Via twitter:

"AP: Palin to Fox Business: not too late for 'folks' to jump in to 2012 race. Said Palin: 'Who knows what will happen in the future?'"

-- Mike Allen (@mikeallen)

Well, Palin is "folks," isn't she?

Look, she's not running. If anyone gets in late, it's Chris Christie -- but only if Romney falters. (Jeb Bush is an option, but there's no way the GOP is picking a Bush in '12.) There just isn't a big-name conservative out there, other than Palin, who has the clout to enter the race at this late date and stand a reasonable chance of pulling it out. And even then, Palin's not terribly popular even with her own party these days. What's more likely is that the primaries divide the Republican Party, with no clear winner emerging, and then a compromise nominee is selected at a brokered convention next summer.

As for Palin, she's just being coy, as usual, tantalizing her gullible admirers and getting herself back out there in the spotlight for the sake of her brand, which of course makes her millions. Like Trump, she craves the attention -- they may be the two biggest media whores in America outside of Jersey Shore.

It's pathetic, but typical. It's best not to listen to a word she says.

**********

Update: Just to be clear, Palin wasn't just talking generally about a late entry into the GOP race, she was talking about herself, responding to a direct question about her possibly "making a play, even after Iowa or New Hampshire."