Plan B Forum

I figured nothing political would get me laughing as much as Berlusconi's shenanigans, but...

Palin commissions 2-hour film about herself to launch presidential run: report

By Lesley Ciarula Taylor
Staff Reporter
May 25, 2011

A $1 million, two-hour feature film about Sarah Palin that she commissioned herself premieres next month as a prelude to her presidential campaign, according to a political writer who saw the film

Scott Conroy of RealClearPolitics described the movie and its secret production by conservative filmmaker Stephen K. Bannon, who bankrolled and controlled the project.

Both CNN and Hollywood insider Nikki Finke have corroborated the existence of the film.

While short films about U.S. presidential candidates are an established tradition, Finke called it “the first feature-film-length biopic for an as-yet-undeclared presidential candidate.”

The film charts Palin’s rise to power in Alaska. Palin made no mention of the film on her Facebook or Twitter sites.

“This film is a call to action for a campaign like 1976: Reagan vs. the establishment,” said Bannon, who produced a Reagan documentary in 2004. “Let's have a good old-fashioned brouhaha.”

The film opens with a montage of celebrities dissing Palin, including an obscenity-laced riff by comedian Louis C.K., which will be excised from the PG-13 version, Bannon said.

Titled The Undefeated, the film is scheduled to premiere next month in Iowa – the first big primary election state for the 2012 presidential campaign – then in three other states before a limited wide release.

Are Republicans stupid enough to make her their nominee? Yeah, I think they are stupid enough.

Are Americans stupid enough to elect her if they are sufficiently pissed with Obama? I will go as far as to say that if she is the nominee, enough people will be stupid enough that she will improve on John McCain's results.

Scooter,

Do you know any nice, eligible Canadian bachelors/divorcees? 40-something or older is preferred.

If so, please advise.

Thanks,
bsg

LOL

Would you settle for a nice, eligible 40-something or older Canadian lesbian?

You know at this point in the game, I'd probably be willing to try that route.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Palin/Bachmann 2012!!!!!!!!!

Seriously, a two-hour film about Sarah Palin??? Jeebus, who could possibly sit through that??? I mean other than Herself? As if any were needed, this is just further proof that she is the self-absorbed attention-whore she makes herself out to be.

Oh, I so cannot wait!!!!! Comedy gold!!!!!!!!!!!!! Every day for the next year and a half!!!!!!!!!

Who's smoking crack now, LJ, huh? That's right, the GOP!!

Larry Sabato says that if Palin is the nominee, the 2012 GOP platform will be the longest suicide note in history.

bigskygal wrote:You know at this point in the game, I'd probably be willing to try that route.

What, and prove dgs49 right?

bigskygal wrote:Scooter,

Do you know any nice, eligible Canadian bachelors/divorcees? 40-something or older is preferred.

If so, please advise.

Thanks,
bsg

I was going to ask if Scooter or anyone in the UK or Aus was interested in adopting. The potential adoptee is a middle-aged female, fully housebroken, very low-maintenance and plays well with others...

kristina wrote: very low-maintenance and plays well with others...

Bites tongue, bitses tongue , bites tongue....


There is a god....

Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin (R), who has been largely out of the public eye through much of the spring, will reemerge Sunday as she begins a national bus tour that will put her back in the spotlight and no doubt renew speculation about a possible presidential bid.

The tour, the first of what will be a series of such journeys over a period of weeks, will starts on Sunday in Washington at the annual Rolling Thunder motorcycle rally and work its way north along the East Coast. She will visit other parts of the country later, stopping at symbolically important sites in the nation’s history.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

How many of our republican leaning friends would vote for her?

I think she SHOULD throw her hat in.

It is probably more intelligent than her and will do a better job of running for the Presidency.

Can I hear a big yee-har for Palin's hat?

YEEE-HARRRRRRR.

Maybe if Obama decides he can't win a second term and steps down for the sake of the party we can have a Palin vs Clinton race!

I thought Clinton said she wasn't going to run?
Palin? forgeddaboutit

Who's smoking crack now, LJ, huh?

Well, Sue if you believe that Sarah Palin will be the GOP Presidential nominee, then I'm afraid you are still the one suckin' on the pipe....

I remain convinced that Palin is not going to run for the nomination; (if she did she would lose and lose badly) that's nothing but a 'shroom dream of the left.

What Palin is doing now fits quite well with what I predicted; that she would go through a lot of motions to act like she was going run to improve the market and brand value of Palin Inc.

The brand took a bit of a hit recently when Trump hoved on to the scene and sucked up a lot of the media oxygen that was previously going to Sarah. Her latest moves are nothing but an attempt to restore some luster to her celebrity cache...

The bottom line is that at the end of the day the GOP nominee is almost certain at this point to be one of two people; Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty.

Romney has been criticized for running such a low profile campaign, but if I were advising him, I would tell him to do exactly what he has been doing. At this juncture, it is precisely the best strategy for him.

Romney has been the huge beneficiary of the developments in the GOP race over the past couple of months. Three candidates who might have been able to mount a serious challenge against him; Barbour, Huckabee and Daniels, (I was particularly disheartened by Daniels decision not to run) have bowed out, and the others in the race...Gingrich, Bachmann and Santorum...have been busy making fools of themselves....

Like Napoleon said, "Never interfere with an enemy while he's in the process of destroying himself." At this point in the game, Romney is playing his cards exactly right.

I've never been a big fan of Romney's ( he has the distinction of being the one major GOP contender during the '08 race that I didn't seriously consider supporting) and I'm no expert on Pawlenty, (the one thing I can be certain of, of course, is that he nowhere near as bad as some on this board have portrayed him)

All things being equal, I would much prefer Jeb Bush to either one of them, (but of course all things aren't equal since Jeb would have a "George problem") However barring something truly bizarre, I fully expect to support my party's nominee.

If I had to bet at this point, I would bet on Obama being re-elected, albeit by a much smaller margin then the last time around, for a whole host of reasons.

BTW, this is very unusual...It's very rare for an incumbent President who wins re-election to do so by a lesser margin than he was elected originally. I had thought that FDR might have been an example of this, but I checked, and he actually won by a greater margin in '36 than in '32. (Though his margins went down progressively in the next two elections) Aside from that I think you'd have to go back into the 1800s to find an example. (If indeed it's ever happened)

But the' 08 election had a perfect storm convergence of factors that produced Obama's almost-landslide that will not be present in 2012. Add that to an economy that is likely to still be largely in the toilet; (I read a couple of days ago that the White House is anticipating an election time unemployment rate of 8.2%...and they are likely to be taking the most optimistic projections they can) and no matter who the GOP nominee is the race is almost certain to be closer it was the last time.

On paper, the 2012 race is very winnable for the GOP...Obama is vulnerable on numerous fronts....

But the problem is, that at least right now, I don't see either of my party's two most likely nominees being strong enough to push a close defeat into a close victory...

There simply is no Ronald Reagan available...

Another quite likely scenario for 2012...

Obama could win a narrow re-election, the Dems could pick up seats in the House, (though probably not enough to re-take control) and the GOP could still win control of the Senate....

The reason for this has to do with the current party distribution of the seats that will be up for grabs..

Of the 33 Senate seat that will be on the ballot in 2012, 23 of them are held by Democrats...a net gain of only four seats gives the Republicans control, something that's very do-able...

If this happens, it will be something else (like a President being re-elected with a smaller margin than he won election by) that's exceedingly rare; a President losing control of a House of Congress while winning re-election.

There's one GOP candidate I haven't mentioned...

Herman Cain. I had occasion to see Mr. Cain interviewed by Chris Wallace last Sunday; a few observations:

Mr. Cain comes across as a very genuine, affable and likable person. And he certainly isn't an idiot, (well, except of course for the thinking he could actually win the nomination thing) nor is he a self absorbed pompous ass, (like Alan Keyes) He's done his homework on some issues, and was able to speak with a passable level of knowledge about some things (he has a fairly detailed tax reform plan for example, that he was able to answer a number of questions about)

But his knowledge of international affairs is so bad, he makes Sarah Palin look like Henry Kissinger....some of the things he said were down right comical...

You didn't mention Mr. Paul

You didn't mention Mr. Paul

Actually that would be Dr. Paul....

Quite right though CP; a terrible omission on my part...

You may put him in the "busy making fools of themselves" category....

The only thing I can say in defense of my oversight is that since Dr. Paul is busy making a fool of himself on pretty much an ongoing basis, whether he's running for anything or not, he simply slipped my mind...

Lord Jim wrote: The brand took a bit of a hit recently when Trump hoved on to the scene and sucked up a lot of the media oxygen that was previously going to Sarah. Her latest moves are nothing but an attempt to restore some luster to her celebrity cache...

Don't blame The Donald.

The Palin 'brand' took a hit when the ridiculous gasbag went on television crying about what a victim SHE was, a few days after Gabi Gifford was almost killed and several others were shot dead. Cries of 'blood libel' is what messed up her brand, not anybody else.

Since I barely watch television I don't really care, but I feel for y'all having to listen to however many more months of that egomaniac hawking herself as somebody of some level of import.

The Palin 'brand' took a hit when the ridiculous gasbag went on television crying about what a victim SHE was, a few days after Gabi Gifford was almost killed and several others were shot dead.

That's a very valid point BSG; I had forgotten about that....

While it is undeniable that there were elements within the press that repeatedly (and dishonestly) attempt to draw a relationship between Palin's website and the scumbag nutcase who committed the murders, if Palin had been a real pro, she would have had enough political smarts and discipline not to rise to the bait.

Her reaction attempting to make this look like it was somehow "about her" was a gross overplaying of the "the press is out to get me" card, and made her look absolutely awful. I suspect this dawned on her after she spouted off, which may be why she kept a relatively low profile for a while after the incident.

I highly doubt she will run. I find it less likely that she would win the R nod, than someone like Al Sharpton could win the D nod. It would take an absurd confluence of events for either of those things to happen. She would lose badly against Obama or any other serious D, as I just don't think she could muster much of a vote from the middle 20-30%, and she would lose plenty of regular R voters as well. She would probably energize the "heck out of" the D base, without enough of her segment of the R base to offset that.