Scott Walker: Big Labor won’t break me.

Bobby Jindal: Louisiana won’t forget Obama’s jackboot-ism.

Sarah Palin: I know you want me.

***

Yesterday: CPAC speeches in 20 words.

I was sitting around the house trying to shake off a one-point Michigan State loss to Michigan when my Twitter feed went crazy with questions like “did Palin just endorse Gingrich?”

It turned out that Sarah Palin was on with Sean Hannity tonight, where she had apparently given a rationed, carefully measured nod to Newt. Sarah’s husband Todd had previously endorsed Gingrich. Having missed Hannity tonight, I managed to find video of the segment at the always on-the-ball Right Scoop. Here’s my best effort at a transcript of the relevant portion:

Hannity: We talked last time about Todd your husband going rogue — you haven’t gone rogue yet. You haven’t given an endorsement. Are you getting any closer to giving an endorsement?

Palin: Well, I could tell you what I would do if I was a South Carolinian [...] If I had to vote in South Carolina, in order to keep this thing going, I’d vote for Newt, and I would want this to continue. More debates. More vetting of candidates. Because we know that the mistake in our country, four years ago, was having a candidate who was not vetted to the degree that he should have been so that we knew what his associations and his pals represented and what went into his thinking — the shaping of who our president today is. That vetting did not take place. I want to see that taking place this time because America is on that precipice — it’s that important. We need this process to continue.

So, did Sarah just endorse Newt? Well, maybe, if we allow more qualifiers than the Boston Marathon. She’s saying that Romney shouldn’t be the default nominee at this point and that the process should go on a little longer so the GOP doesn’t have an un-vetted candidate like the Democrats did in 2008 — as if that’s possible. It’s not as if the media wouldn’t have stayed in the tank for Obama if only Hillary could have held out a little longer in the primary process.

Click the pic to go to Right Scoop and roll tape of the segment. Decide for yourself if this is an endorsement of Gingrich, or the placement of a “proceed with extreme caution” sign on Romney. Also, will it move the needle at all for Newt in SC?

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

Actress Julianne Moore, who happens to be of Hollywood liberal pedigree, is playing the part of Sarah Palin in “Game Change,” an HBO movie from a screenplay adapted by a liberal and directed by a liberal. But that’s balanced out because the part of John McCain is being played by an actor who is a liberal, and the role of McCain’s advisor Steve Schmidt will be handled by Woody Harrelson, who is — you guessed it — a noted lefty (Richard Dreyfuss and Josh Brolin must have had other obligations).

No matter what level of objectivity, or lack thereof, “Game Change” displays, after these last three years, the movie might accomplish little except to make people wonder what might have been. In other words, the producers might end up with a sinking feeling that they released this flick two and a half years too late.

I’m told the movie is rated PG-13, and that’s due mostly to a fairly torrid love scene between McCain and Russ Feingold. Here’s a preview:

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

Conservatives4Palin raised enough money to buy ad time in Iowa in order to run a spot asking Sarah Palin to reconsider her decision not to run for president.

This will debut on KCAU in Sioux City tomorrow:

Last week Ed Morrissey at Hot Air had this reminder:

Isn’t it too late to get in the race? Not in Iowa, or in other caucus states like Nevada. The state parties run those events, and they can add a name to the ballot at any time — or caucus-goers can write in their favored candidates if they like.

However, Palin faces a bigger problem outside of Iowa. Most of the early contests are not caucuses, but primaries — and those states do have filing deadlines, which have all passed. Palin wouldn’t have contended in New Hampshire anyway, but can any candidate fail to win South Carolina, Florida, and Michigan and still expect to seriously contend for the nomination? Filing deadlines for all of these states have already passed.

Palin could go the third party route, but I don’t think she’d do anything that would end up helping re-elect Barack Obama.

Even though Palin has announced that she won’t run, and I believe she’ll stick to that for a host of reasons, the ad’s central message still serves as an important reminder for Republicans about to choose their nominee:

Palin: We will not solve our economic problems in this country until we confront the crony capitalism of our permanent political class. This is socialism for the very rich and the very poor but it is a brutal form of capitalism for the rest of us. It’s the collusion of big government, big business. It’s at the heart of President Obama’s economic vision … We need sudden and relentless reform and that will return power to ‘We the People’
[...]
The challenge is not simply to replace Obama in 2012. The real challenge is who and what we will replace him with.

(h/t Real Clear Politics)

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

She is at her best when challenging the Beltway GOP establishment and taking on the corruption and profligacy in both parties. More power to her.

***
Gov. Palin broke the news on the Mark Levin radio show — she will not run for president in 2012.

Levin read her written statement and interviewed her. The Right Scoop has audio (more).

Here’s the full statement:

Wasilla, Alaska

Last summer, as you know, author Joe McGinniss earned his place in the annals of literary stalkers by moving in next door to the Palin family, ostensibly to “research” a book. Well, that book is now out, and so far it has the makings of what could end up as an expensive disaster for author and publisher:

Attorneys representing former Alaska governor Sarah Palin have written to Crown Publishing, a division of Random House, serving notice of possible litigation for defamation in connection with Joe McGinniss’s recent anti-Palin biography, and warning the company not to delete or destroy relevant documents.

The letter (see below) reads, in part:

Enclosed is an e-mail by your author Joe McGinniss. In this e-mail, Mr. McGinniss admits that your own lawyers instructed him that “nothing I can cite other than my own reporting rises above the level of tawdry gossip.”….Indeed, Mr. McGinniss admits that the allegations are false unless he can find someone or something to show they are true. We know from the final book that he was unable to do so.

It is malicious for your company to publish a book wherein it, and the author, admit that they were fully aware the statements in the book were false, intended to be false, and were intended to harm…

The rest of the text including a copy of the letter is at Big Government.

Over the weekend McGinniss was reportedly complaining that even outlets like Olbermann, Maddow and NPR are canceling his scheduled appearances or refusing to have him on at all. The above might offer a clue as to why. Not many media suits right now are going to want to take part in helping push a bombing book that could end up as an expensive and/or embarrassing legal headache.

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

Sarah Palin obviously isn’t even a declared candidate, but according to a new national poll she’s not only still well within the fray, but gaining speed:

A new McClatchy-Marist poll finds that Obama looks increasingly vulnerable in next year’s election, with a majority of voters believing he’ll lose to any Republican, a solid plurality saying they’ll definitely vote against him and most potential Republican challengers gaining on him.

Even in potential matchups where he leads, Obama in most cases has lost ground to the Republican.

The biggest gain came for Palin, the former Alaska governor who hasn’t yet announced whether she’ll jump into the fast-changing race for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

After trailing Obama by more than 20 percentage points in polls all year, the new national survey, taken Sept. 13-14, found Palin trailing the president by just 5 points, 49-44 percent. The key reason: She now leads Obama among independents, a sharp turnaround.

The poll also found a growing “anybody but Obama” trend, with independents saying they definitely plan to vote against the president 53 to 28 percent. But I’m sure that’ll change after Obama says “pass this bill” a couple hundred more times.

Here are some “head to head” comparisons of Republicans vs. Obama:

Obama is neck and neck with Romney, leading by 46-44. Obama had led by 5 points in August, 4 points in June, and 1 point in April. Romney now leads among independents, 44 percent to 40 percent.

Obama leads Perry by 50 percent to 41 percent. They split independents 43-43. Obama had led Perry by 19 points in August, as Perry was joining the campaign.

Obama leads Bachmann 53 percent to 40 percent. He had led her by 17 points in August, by 12 points in June.

Obama leads Palin by 49 percent to 44 percent. He led in August by 21 points, in June by 26 points, and in April by 22 points.

If Palin keeps trending like this, Joe McGinniss might want to rent the place next door to the White House just in case.

Obviously it’s still way too early to make predictions about who the GOP nominee will be based on polls. Take a look at the Real Clear Politics average exactly the same amount of time from the 2008 election as we are now from the 2012 election:

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

*Sarah Palin is set to speak in Iowa shortly (estimated time – 2:15pm ET). You can watch live here on C-SPAN. She is reportedly going to tackle crony capitalism. The timing couldn’t be better.

*It’s not news to readers of this blog that green jobs are a hemorrhaging taxpayer-funded slush fund for unions and eco-elites. More than a year ago, David Freddoso spotlighted the shady Solyndra/Obama deal. He featured the corporate welfare redistribution scam in his book, Gangster Government. And as he noted, the chapter reads even better now that Solyndra is bankrupt.

GOP House investigators are now on the case. The stench of the culture of corruption is strong.

House investigators said they have uncovered evidence that White House officials became personally involved in an Energy Department review of a hot-button $535 million loan guarantee to the now-failed California solar company Solyndra.

The allegation surfaced in a letter House Energy Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) sent to the White House Thursday night, saying he planned to accelerate efforts to understand an investment deal that may have left taxpayers out half a billion dollars.

“We have learned from our investigation that White House officials monitored Solyndra’s application and communicated with [Department of Energy] and Office of Management and Budget officials during the course of their review,” the letter says.

Thursday’s letter, which calls on the White House to turn over correspondence between administration officials, Solyndra and its investors, presents the most pointed suggestion that the White House had direct involvement in the financing.

“How did this company, without maybe the best economic plan, all of a sudden get to the head of the line?” Upton told ABC News in an interview this week. “We want to know who made this decision … and we’re not going to stop until we get those answers.”

As I have said repeatedly about “public-private partnerships” pushed by politicians in both parties and their crony pals:

While the White House pushes for a bonanza of new “public-private partnerships,” let me refresh your memories of some of the Democrats’ great ideas of “public-private partnerships”…

…taxpayer-funded black hole FANNIE MAE;

…Chicago’s shady Shorebank and its crony-supported successor, Urban Partnership Bank;

…the failed Chicago Olympics wealth distribution boondoggle;

…and the failed Richard Daley/Valerie Jarrett Chicago low-income housing boondoggle.

This isn’t about letting the best ideas and businesses thrive. It’s about picking winners and losers. It’s about “managing” competition and engineering political outcomes under the guise of stimulating the economy. As I noted last April when the command-and-controller-in-chief lectured businesses that “at some point you have made enough money,” we are dealing with a president who presumes to know when you have earned “enough,” who believes that only those who provide what he deems “good” products and services should “keep on making it,” and who has determined that the role of American entrepreneurs is not to pursue their own self-interest, but to fulfill their “core” responsibility as dutiful growers of the collective economy.

What’s in it for the statist businesses that go along for the ride with Obama and his team of corruptocrats?

Like they say in the Windy City: It’s all about the boodle.

In Chicago politics, there’s an old term for the publicly-subsidized pay-offs meted out to the corruptocrats’ friends and special interests: Boodle.

In the age of Obama, “reform” is all about the boodle. So it was with the stimulus. And the massive national service expansion. And the health care bill. And so it is with the financial “reform” bill…In front of the cameras, the Democrats will lambaste the greedy, Wall Street money. Behind the scenes, they’re pocketing Wall Street campaign donations and working out deals.

Goo-goo “reform” has always entailed wealth redistribution under the guise of public service (or “social justice” or “media justice” or “innovation” or whatever the euphemism of the day is). The goodies can take the form of exclusive union-only contracts or p.c. bailouts or waivers for favors.

When businesses get in the government handout line, it’s not a “public-private partnership.”

It’s corporate welfare — and it stinks as much under Democrat administrations as it does under Republican ones.

It goes without saying that American entrepreneurs should be beware of White House business-bashers bearing gifts.

But so, too, should taxpayers beware of Washington business-boosters wearing false free-market facades.

Sarah Palin’s rolling menace will fire up again today for a run through Iowa just as eight GOP candidates will be having a debate in Ames.

Politico:

In an email to supporters Wednesday, Palin said she’s accepted an invitation “to meet folks at the Iowa State Fair in Des Moines this week.”

Palin doesn’t say which day she plans to appear at the fair, which coincides with the straw poll but is a separate event about half an hour away. An Iowa GOP activist who is close to Palin, Becky Beach, told the Des Moines Register the visit was slated for Friday.
[...]
Asked by Fox News’s Sean Hannity about her presidential intentions last week, she said, “Getting closer to making a decision, of course, for legal reasons, for practical reasons. But I still haven’t made up my mind yet, Sean.”

Naturally, Palin’s email about the trip to the fair includes a dig at President Obama. She writes, “I’m also excited to try some of that famous fried butter-on-a-stick, fried cheesecake-on-a-stick, fried Twinkies, etc. I’ll enjoy them in honor of those who’d rather make us just ‘eat our peas’!”

Oh if only Sarah could have convinced Green Giant to sponsor this leg of the tour.

The Ames Straw Poll is taking place on Saturday, and I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention that reportedly write-in votes will be allowed for the first time.

Palin will also speak at a Tea Party event in Iowa on Labor Day weekend. Does all this equal a run? No idea yet… but here’s a video by way of Conservatives 4 Palin on the bus tour re-launch in Hawkeye country:

Further fragmenting the media, President Obama is kicking off his own bus tour and will be in Iowa on August 16th (don’t miss the top 20 names for his “jobs” bus tour — my favorite: “Titanic on Wheels”).

The president’s bus tour will also roll through areas hard-hit by the economy, such as parts of Illinois and Minnesota. And of course the tour will end in a place that serves as a monumental symbol of these tough economic times: Martha’s Vineyard.

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

Sigh. Seriously, Tina Brown?

Yes, I’m talking about you, Oxford University-educated Newsweek/Daily Beast editor Tina Brown.

You’ve resorted to recycling bottom-of-the-barrel moonbat photo cliches about conservative female public figures and their enraged “crazy eyes?” Really?

Who’s in charge of Newsweek cover graphics now — a Media Matters Soros Monkey? A random Daily Kos commenter? Keith Olbermann’s intern’s intern?

The once-mighty Newsweek magazine-turned-Beast is apparently so proud of its Democratic Underground-pandering Michele Bachmann cover and title that its editors are promoting the photo and pushing the hashtag #QueenofRage on Twitter.

And the left-wing press is eating it up:

Gawker, predictably: “Ha ha, just kidding—they don’t call her CrazyEyes for nothing.”

The Village Voice rejoices after receiving a high-res image of the cover (and dutifully cropping Bachmann’s eyes).

More reax: Newsbusters and Dana Loesch (who launches her own caption contest for Tina Brown).

Rep. Bachmann is unabashedly conservative, willing to take both parties’ leaders to task, passionate about her work, popular with grass-roots activists on the Right, committed to reining in the size, scope, and power of government, and yes, expressive. For all this, she must be destroyed.

No doubt the editors and photog will deny doing anything to make Bachmann look bad.

But here’s what GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann looks like in a straight photo.

A link-filled reminder: The liberal media fetish of demonizing conservative women and their looks goes back years.

In 2005, I blasted USA Today for altering a photo of then-GOP Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice to demonize her eyes. The before:

And after:

After a massive backlash from bloggers, commenters, photography software experts, and readers who called out the newspaper’s sneaky photo doctors, USA Today removed the retouched photo and admitted it had been enhanced — “giving her eyes an unnatural appearance. This resulted in a distortion of the original not in keeping with our editorial standards.”

It is, however, in keeping with the “crazy eyes”/”batsh*t crazy” narrative that’s a mainstay in the progressive blog sewer:

As documented by Karrin Anderson on the left-wing blog Bag News Notes, the Bachmann-eye-bashing editors of Rolling Stone and the Huffington Post already beat Brown and her Newsweek/Beast to the punch.

Yep, the magazine that popularized those “conventional wisdom” charts is now slavishly following the conventional crap-flinging of puerile progs on the Internet.

When I came out with Culture of Corruption in 2009, for example, one Soros-employed lefty’s response consisted entirely of multiple freeze-frame shots of my “crazyface” and “wide-eyed zealot” TV appearances, including these:

To repeat what I said last month: I’d rather have “crazy eyes” than willfully blind ones.

Also: “Crazy eyes” are also useful for doing the Mom Death Stare on unruly kids. Invaluable weapon. Wouldn’t trade these peepers for anything.

While Anderson notes that a few liberal female politicians also have faced the exaggerated crazy-eye photo treatment, she fails to recognize that those images are almost all relegated to Internet humor/blog sites — as opposed to the mainstreaming of demon conservatives images by national media publications.

As faithful readers will recall, The Atlantic magazine hired unhinged photog Jill Greenberg in 2008 to take a cover photo of then-GOP presidential candidate John McCain…

…which Greenberg then altered for her website thusly (this is just one of several bizarro images she photoshopped and featured on her professional website)…

…causing The Atlantic to issue this mortified editor’s note:

We stand by the respectful image of John McCain that we used on our cover, and we expect to be judged by it. We were not aware of the manipulated and dishonest images Jill Greenberg had taken until this past Friday.

Jill Greenberg has obviously not done that. She has, in fact, disgraced herself, and we are appalled by the manipulated images of John McCain she has created for her Web site.

It wasn’t just about vetting her political views, though. It was her previous record of unethical and unprofessional behavior motivated by left-wing malice. Greenberg tricked McCain into standing over a light to create ugly shadows on his face. Manipulation is her stock and trade. (Indeed, it’s her Twitter handle.) Four years earlier, she deliberately terrorized children, stripped them, ordered parents to “step out of the studio for a couple minutes” in concerted attempts to make children cry who were not cooperating, and then captioned the photos of the children with anti-Bush slogans.

Later, she admitted to trying to make Glenn Beck look bad (a failed attempt that he laughed off) in photo art published by Time magazine.

Time magazine has previously carried distorted photos and photoshops of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh.

Disseminating unflattering photos of conservatives isn’t journalism. It’s Alinskyite narrative-shaping. And for holier-than-thou highbrow poseurs from Time and Newsweek to the Soros zoo and rage photog Jill Greenberg, it’s a hard habit to break.

***

Question: When was the last time Time or Newsweek put a halo around a conservative politician? Hmmm?

Let the speculation… continue.

Real Clear Politics:

In the latest indication that her sights are still set on a presidential run, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has accepted an invitation to keynote a Tea Party rally in Waukee, Iowa, on Sept. 3, RealClearPolitics has learned.

The Labor Day weekend visit to the nation’s first voting state comes after Palin indicated during an appearance on Fox News earlier this month that she would make her decision about whether to launch a campaign in August or September.

All signs now point to September as the month when Palin would throw her hat into the ring, as logistical concerns ranging from fundraising to getting her name on the ballot in various states would likely preclude further delay.
[...]
Palin has been relatively quiet over the past month, as she has retreated to Alaska to immerse herself in policy and to strategize with her husband, Todd, and top advisers about how a potential campaign would work.

Read the rest here.

So what do you think? A speech on the future of America, or one maybe even to announce an endorsement — perhaps a presidential announcement? All I know is that the place will be jumping and the media will show up in droves — at least the ones who aren’t still hospitalized with PTRMD (Post Traumatic Rolling Menace Disorder).

Or maybe it’s just a head-fake on Sarah’s part to see if she can get George Lopez to move to Canada. I guess we’ll find out soon enough.

Palin’s Labor Day weekend appearance, coincidentally, will be on the three-year anniversary of her Republican Convention speech.

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

The Palins will be in Iowa next week for the premiere of The Undefeated. It’s not known yet if they’ll be flying to Pella, Iowa, or driving in on the lawless “rolling menace” that makes reporters flee for their lives like Tokyoites from Godzilla.

Let the “is she or isn’t she” speculation begi… er, continue:

SANTA MONICA, Calif. (June 25, 2011) – Victory Film Group and ARC Entertainment announced today that Governor Sarah Palin and her husband Todd will attend the premiere of The Undefeated at the historic Pella Opera House on Tuesday June 28 at 5pm Central Time in Pella, Iowa. Immediately after the showing, Victory Film Group and ARC Entertainment will host a traditional Iowa cookout to thank the Pella Opera House and the people of Pella.

Guess who else will be in Iowa on the same day.

It’s probably too much to hope for that Michele Bachmann will order Ed Rollins to serve as Sarah & Todd’s chauffeur while in Iowa, isn’t it?

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

Dozens of journalists dutifully monitored the hundreds of citizens they recruited to do pro-bono muckraking for the MSM, and the overall efforts to find dirt in Sarah Palin’s emails are finally starting to produce fruit.

This New York Daily News headline explains the developing scandal: Sarah Palin writes at an eighth-grade level in recently released emails, say writing analysts:

She may have attended four universities, but Sarah Palin still writes like an eighth-grader.

AOL Weird News gave two writing analytic companies samples of the former Alaska governor’s recently released emails and both agree that the Tea Party favorite writes as if she’s in middle school.

You have to keep going to find out that it’s not as bad as they try to make it sound:

It turns out Palin’s writing skills are still better than most educated Americans. Global Language Monitor gave Palin’s emails a score of 8.2, which actually exceeds that of most chief executives.

“She’s very concise. She gives clear orders. Her sentences and punctuations are logical,” said Paul Payack, president of Global Language Monitor. “She has much more of a disciplined mind than she’s given credit for.”

The Daily News didn’t mention one of those chief executives by name. Sarah might not be so dumb after all. Unflippingbelievable!

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

Here’s my response to the New York Times and Washington Post crowd-sourcing of Sarah Palin’s emails during her tenure as Alaska governor, via Matthew Boyle’s piece on the document dump:

The New York Times and the Washington Post issued open calls on Thursday asking their readers to help them “investigate” emails from Sarah Palin’s tenure as governor of Alaska. There was no indication of what this investigation was supposed to uncover.

Conservative columnist Michelle Malkin told The Daily Caller that the Times and the Post should just finally admit it: they are “left-wing organs.” Malkin wondered why these bold, new media-minded folks were not investigating the Obama administration.

“Where were all the crowd-sourcing champions at the New York Times and Washington Post when Democrats dumped the thousand-plus pages of the Obamacare and stimulus laws on the American people?” Malkin asked in an email to TheDC. “How about issuing an open call for collective public analysis of the nearly 1,400 recipients of HHS health care waivers? Or perhaps a project to pursue FOIA requests and reader information-gathering to probe Project Gunrunner?”

Malkin said calls for reader help with investigations that are critical of anyone on the left “ain’t gonna happen, of course,” at the Post or the Times. “So perhaps these left-wing organs should simply abandon all pretenses and form a progressive consortium with the Huffington Post and Daily Kos to officially unveil Operation Get Sarah,” Malkin said. “Then they can submit their joint application for the Pulitzer Prize in public-service journalism while mocking Palin for her thin skin.”

Now: Can you imagine if Fox News asked viewers to join them in a similar endeavor? Every journalism pooh-bah across the country would be caviling about the un-credentialed barbarians at the media gate.

Question: How do you become a journalist?

New York Times and Washington Post editors’ answer: By our invitation only.

***

DrewM tweets: “If only MSM had shown .00000001% of the interest they are showing in Palin today in Obama 3 yrs ago…”

That’s why I had to write Culture of Corruption, of course.

Somebody’s gotta doing the work the Credentialed Media won’t do.

And now, they won’t even do their own water-carrying for Team Obama.

***

Keep chasing the bus, boys.

***

The Washington Post has set up its own separate “@Palinemails” twitter feed to tweet every last trivial tidbit from the document dump.

Such as this: “Palin emails show concern about media. http://ow.ly/5f9QO Follow us at #Palinemails”

“Concern about media.”

Yeah, go figure!

***

Meanwhile, still no interest in Rep. Anthony Weiner’s possible skeevy communications with underage girls.

Michele Bachmann has hired Ed Rollins to run her campaign, and it didn’t take him long in his new role to flow back into the old routine and start in on the Palin criticism:

Michelle Bachmann’s new top consultant, Ed Rollins, began his tenure with scathing criticism of potential Bachmann rival Sarah Palin.

“Sarah has not been serious over the last couple of years,” Rollins told Brian Kilmeade on his radio show, Kilmeade and friends. “She got the Vice Presidential thing handed to her, she didn’t go to work in the sense of trying to gain more substance, she gave up her governorship.”
[...]
Rollins has long been skeptical of Palin, but his new role with Bachmann suggests that criticism will become part of her campaign, though she has publicly praised the former Alaska governor.

I ask if Rollins knows for a fact that Sarah Palin is even going to run, because if he doesn’t, what’s the sense in criticizing someone Bachmann describes as a friend who could potentially be an asset on the campaign trail?

It sounds as if Rollins is fairly certain Palin’s going to enter the fray, but again, if he’s not sure and is just taking instinctive jabs, he’s not serving his client very well right out of the gate.

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

Update (MM): Flashback 2008…Rollins has a history of running his mouth to the detriment of his clients…What I said back then: “When a campaign guru is garnering more attention for himself than his candidate, it spells trouble.”