Home > Culture Warriors/Far Right, Fox News > Palin and Fox News part company, $ listed as the cause

Palin and Fox News part company, $ listed as the cause

January 26th, 2013

sarah palin

It appears that Sarah Palin’s rising star is crashing to earth.  According to Thedailybeast.com:

Fox News offered Sarah Palin a new contract before she decided to part ways with the network where she has held forth as a commentator for the last three years.

However, it would be hard to describe it as a generous contract.

Palin was a hot property when Roger Ailes landed her in 2009, fresh off her colorful run for vice president, and paid her an annual salary of $1 million. Fox even built Palin a studio at her Wasilla home.

But relations cooled between the two sides, and Palin was appearing on Fox less often—complaining on Facebook one night during the Republican convention that the network had canceled her appearances.

The new contract offered by Fox, say people familiar with the situation, would have provided only a fraction of the million-dollar-a-year salary. It was then, they say, that Palin turned it down and both sides agreed to call it quits.

Fox News released a very positive statement regarding Mrs. Palin’s departure.  Fox News had even built a studio in her home in Wasilla so she didn’t have to leave the house.  She just had to get gussied up.  Nothing has been said about Fox News removing the studio.  It is hard to imagine that another news show would strike a deal with Palin.  Her rock star status started flying south shortly after the mid-term elections.  Once Glenn Beck was given the boot, Fox News got over its Tea Party glow, Sarah Palin seemed just a little more irrelevant. Her swan song arrived when she failed to join the clown team we all got to witness before Mitt Romney was selected as the GOP candidate in 2012.

Did the film Game Change  diminish Palin’s desirability?  In many respects she came off as an unpolished diamond in the rough.  In other respects, she just came off as a demanding bitch who was going to have her star status regardless of damage to the GOP or Senator McCain.

Regardless, there is no telling where Palin will end up.  She certainly leaves the limelight a lot wealthier than she was when Senator McCain selected the little known Alaskan governor as his running mate.  She has written several books and has gathered quite a few fans who admire her like a she is a cult leader.

Will she run for public office in Alaska or did she ruin all chances of the ever being elected again when she resigned her post a Governor of Alaska?  Stay tuned.  Once the Palins hit town, they didn’t appear to be leaving any time soon.

  1. Censored bybvbl
    January 26th, 2013 at 15:10 | #1

    I think her fifteen minutes has come and gone. Hers is the Honey Boo Boo family of Alaska. One is quite enough…

  2. Starryflights
    January 26th, 2013 at 16:01 | #2

    It is beyond me how such an idiot got there in the first place. She’s too dumb for public office. I think she will fade away quietly.

  3. Lyssa
    January 26th, 2013 at 16:59 | #3

    Or show up on a reality show..

  4. Scout
    January 26th, 2013 at 17:31 | #4

    She made her money. I’m hoping Fox will now honor my request to put a studio addition on to my study so that I may share my opinions with their viewers without having to step outside.

    • January 26th, 2013 at 18:23 | #5

      I will contribute to it, Scout. I would rather hear your views than theirs. That way you could bring your dogs on to sit at your feet also.

  5. Scout
    January 26th, 2013 at 19:28 | #6

    At the moment I am in front of my woodburning stove, with big dogs at my feet, reading alternatively between Les Miserables and the most recent New Yorker, specifically David Remnick’s article on current political dynamics in Israel. WETA has Berlioz’s Symphonie Fantastique going (Berlioz being a contemporary of Victor Hugo). I have a half glass remaining of a respectable Zinfandel. I guess it’s just as well Fox doesn’t need me to step into my proprietary studio to give them my views of the day. I am content.

  6. January 26th, 2013 at 19:51 | #7

    @Scout, it seems like life is treating you well. Get a refill.

    I can’t wait for Les Miserables to come out on DVD. No date has been announced yet.

  7. January 26th, 2013 at 20:09 | #8

    You have English setters, don’t you? @Scout

  8. Scout
    January 26th, 2013 at 20:42 | #9

    One might think so. It would fit the scaled down, bourgeois Lord Grantham image I am trying to cultivate (although his Isis appears to be a yellow lab). The 10-year old 110-pounder is a security breed created by our erstwhile (one hopes) enemies during the Cold War. Her best days as a defender of Siberian military bases (or anything else other than a marrow bone) are behind her. The 85 pounder is a young rescue dog that appears to be a mix of Great Dane, pit bull, boxer, and short-haired collie. He is athletic, quick as a rattlesnake and dangerous as far as male strangers are concerned (he seems to have no problem with women, children and other dogs – I strongly suspect abuse by a male human in his Les Mis-like puppyhood). Nonetheless, they’re both sweethearts in circles where they know the people and enjoy the warmth from the fire as much as I do. No Zin for them, however.

    BTW, I recommend avoiding Les Miserables on DVD, unless you have quite the home theatre system. That is a big screen, big sound system film if ever there was one. Get Lincoln for home viewing. That one definitely goes in my cabinet.

    Nice chatting with you. Time to put another log on.

    • January 26th, 2013 at 21:12 | #10

      @Scout, you and the pups have a good evening. Thanks for the recommendation.

  9. kelly_3406
    January 26th, 2013 at 21:08 | #11

    @Starryflights

    Funny. I had the same thought after reading Hillary Clinton’s testimony this week.

  10. punchak
    January 26th, 2013 at 22:06 | #12

    Hillary is a classy lady with a great education, great vocabulary, great intelligence, great stamina, great way to handle nasty male inquisitors. Verrrrry cool!

  11. January 26th, 2013 at 22:18 | #13

    Oh Kelly. minus 500 points. How can you compare Hillary to Palin?

    That really besmirches your reputation. You can like or dislike either of them. However, educationally speaking, there is no comparison. Experience wise, no comparison. Intellectually, no comparison.

    As for use of sound bytes, I would place Palin over Clinton. Palin is probably better looking if you could slide the time line scales to match up. Other than that…why even discuss. I would never call Clinton a hottie. Her husband yes. Her, no.

  12. kelly_3406
    January 27th, 2013 at 05:56 | #14

    You can gloss over Hillary’s record if you want, but her performance in the State Department has been abysmal. She may be experienced, but her tenure at State has damaged her brand. And as for education, she’s a lawyer, so what? There are a lot of dumb lawyers.

    • January 27th, 2013 at 08:09 | #15

      @Kelly, her approval rating is at something like 80% at the moment. Please explain to me how you perceive this as ‘damaged her brand.’

      You may dislike her, intensely even, but how you feel is far from her brand being damaged.

      Hillary wasn’t a lawyer when she was at Wellesley. You should read up on her accomplishments.

      Now, the thread is about Sarah Palin. It appears to me that you are trying to hi-jack the thread because you are unwilling to discuss Palin’s accomplishments or failures.

      You would appear more credible if you just said you can’t stand Hillary Clinton and moved on. You are ruining your brand.

  13. Scout
    January 27th, 2013 at 06:29 | #16

    I’ve not been a fan of Hillary and I had no use for the Hillary/Bill co-enabling team when he was President. I very much opposed her bid for the nomination in 2008. But I have to acknowledge that I think she has been an excellent Secretary of State. I have been very impressed with how she has handled the job. I am curious as to what Kelly finds “abysmal” about her performance?

    The Benghazi fiasco rests on her desk. She has said as much. I thought her performance at the hearings last week was an exercise in deflection on the question of why there was so much confusion about what had really happened. The whys and hows of what happened really do matter. Having said that, I think the body of her work as Secretary of State over four years has been at a very high level by any standard and merits acknowledgement.

  14. kelly_3406
    January 27th, 2013 at 09:31 | #17

    During Hillar’stenure, the U.S. position in the world became more tenuous than it has been over the last 50 years. As the Middle East became de-stabilized, the administration made a series of poor decisions such as failing to support protesters in Iran, pulling the rug from Mubarak thereby allowing the Muslim Brotherhood to take control of Egypt, failing to negotiate a Status of Forces agreement with Iraq, engaging in public tiffs with Israel that call into question U.S. commitment to Israel.

    Whether one chooses to give “credit” to Obama or Hillary, the last four years have produced multiple diplomatic failures that eroded U.S. security.

    • January 27th, 2013 at 11:48 | #18

      :roll:

      Perhaps we should have Bolton back. That was pure sarcasm.

      You have failed to show any cause/effect.

      Israel isn’t destabilized. Interesting that so many mainstream Israelis are against Netenyahu isnt it?

      Kelly, your problem is that you haven’t gotten word that we don’t muscle and strong arm other countries any more.

      I believe also that you are confusing secretary of state with secretary of defense and President.

  15. Starryflights
    January 27th, 2013 at 09:39 | #19

    They got bin laden. That’s more than can be said for the last Administration

  16. January 27th, 2013 at 09:47 | #20

    @punchak
    And a completely corrupt outlook on politics.

  17. kelly_3406
    January 27th, 2013 at 09:50 | #22

    @Starryflights

    The last time I checked, the military got bin laden. Unless the State Department is taking on new roles, Hillary had nothing to do with it.

  18. Scout
    January 27th, 2013 at 10:12 | #23

    Kelly: do you think the US could have saved Mubarak? Is it not highly possible (or even probable) that there was no action the US could have taken to preserve his rule, and even if we had, we would have alienated the population of Egypt far more than is the case now? Is it in US interests to align itself with the kind of military strong men who have dominated the Arab world for so many years? Was there a way that the United States could NOT have “allowed” the Muslim Brotherhood to put some of its people in positions of power in Egypt? Personally, I don’t think the United States “allowed” the Muslim Brotherhood to gain control, I think the citizens of Egypt allowed it. How that will work out for them, long term, remains to be seen.

    When Israel engages in policies that may or do adversely affect US interests in a region that is the site of vital national security implications for this country, are we obligated not to express reservations about those policies? Do we owe Israel an obligation of public silence? Has not Israel or its political leaders been quick its public displeasure with our policies when they think it in their interests to do so?

    Would not events around the globe have had the effect of making US diplomacy more complex regardless of who was at the State Department? We are moving into a complicated, multi-polar era in international relations, where US positions are more vulnerable and less likely to be compelling to others simply because they are US positions. Our military capabilities have been much degraded by elective wars and our economic position, while not as adversely affected as some other nations, is not as dominant as it was prior to the 2008 crisis and the subsequent recovery.

    I don’t think it is clear that the Iraqi government was ever going to approve any kind of reasonable SOFA in Iraq. Intractable bargaining on that point was not in our interests.

    The one point which I feel some agreement with you is the issue of how the US best works with progressive forces in Iran. It’s one of those things that is difficult to assess, but there is a large, educated, sophisticated, young population in Iran, and it is not clear to the average civilian here that we are doing as much as we should to influence their views. There may be more going on than I am aware of, but I would like to think we have a full court press on influencing hearts and minds internally in Iran. That is a government that is extremely vulnerable to ridicule, even allowing for cultural differences. There are so many options technologically, through social media, etc., that I suspect more could be done.

    Nonetheless, I have been watching US diplomatic efforts for many years, and it strikes me as hard to make the case that Hillary did less than an admirable job in the post at a very complex and demanding time.

  19. kelly_3406
    January 27th, 2013 at 17:34 | #24

    @Scout

    I agree that they were tough situations, but I would not expect to lose every time. Hillary and the Administration were at least 0 for 3 on very significant issues.

    I too do a great deal of reading about foreign policy and national defense, and my conclusions are different from yours. For example, Maliki left open the possibility of extending SOFA past 2011, but the State Dept nixed it by proposing a tiny residual force that had no capability to do much of anything beyond maintaining a symbolic presence. It did not have to turn out the way it did.

    I could provide further details for other issues as well, but I do not have the time or the inclination. My main point is that for someone to perform “admirably,” (s)he actually has to accomplish something that enhances the interests of the United States. She has not done that.

  20. Rick Bentley
    January 28th, 2013 at 10:22 | #25

    Eventually, she and Glen Beck will be marketing a celebrity porn tape together.

  21. Rick Bentley
    January 28th, 2013 at 10:51 | #27

    Maybe Bob Menendez?

  22. Rick Bentley
    January 28th, 2013 at 10:51 | #29

    or of course the obvious choice (Bill Clinton).

  23. Rick Bentley
    January 28th, 2013 at 10:52 | #30

    And I’m not so sure it’s fair to call Palin an “idiot” unless we stipulate that the majority of Representatives that we elect are similarly vapid and phony.

  24. Rick Bentley
    January 28th, 2013 at 10:58 | #31

    Bill Clinton and Sarah Pain, celebrity porn tape – call it “The Bipartisan Bang”. They could donte half the profits to charities of their choice – Clinton would pick the latest natural disaster, Palin could build an add-on to her house so that she could see Russia better and could keep an eye out for invasion.

    Ah, it’ll never happen. Palin would want to insist on only performing “normal” sex acts; Clinton sees those as a sin in his Christian God’s eyes and would only agree to oral sex and cigar play.

    • January 28th, 2013 at 12:02 | #32

      You will love the next thread…since you are in a depraved mood today, Rick B.

      How about a little Love Shack music to enhance your Palin/Clinton…errr….story….

  25. middleman
    January 28th, 2013 at 17:44 | #33

    kelly_3406 :
    During Hillar’stenure, the U.S. position in the world became more tenuous than it has been over the last 50 years. As the Middle East became de-stabilized, the administration made a series of poor decisions such as failing to support protesters in Iran, pulling the rug from Mubarak thereby allowing the Muslim Brotherhood to take control of Egypt, failing to negotiate a Status of Forces agreement with Iraq, engaging in public tiffs with Israel that call into question U.S. commitment to Israel.
    Whether one chooses to give “credit” to Obama or Hillary, the last four years have produced multiple diplomatic failures that eroded U.S. security.

    Kelly, from what people who were on the ground say, Abu Ghraib has been the #1 recruiting tool for the terrorist groups. Rendition and torture by the US government is #2.The invasion of Iraq was #3. Iran has gained immense power from our mis-steps in Iraq. The list goes on. If you want to talk about mis-handled situations that eroded our security, these dwarf anything anyone in the Obama administration has done, including Hillary. This is silly to even talk about.

    Pulling the rug from Mubarak? Are you kidding? Engaging in public tiffs with Israel? Even many of the Israeli people don’t agree with many extremist policies of the hard-line Netanyahu. Would you have a foreign government (Israel) run our foreign policy?

    Is this all you got? Hillary did her best to get things back on track after what was arguably the worst administration in history completely screwed it up.

  26. January 28th, 2013 at 21:29 | #34

    This article on Sarah Palin in today’s WaPo is very interesting, as is the video from Feb. 2008. Palin is almost likeable in this video.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/01/28/what-sarah-palin-meant/?hpid=z2

    Something happened along the way to make me intensely dislike her. That feeling had not been there before.

  27. kelly_3406
    January 29th, 2013 at 07:00 | #35

    @middleman

    Middleman: I HAVE been on the ground in the Middle East, and I can tell you that populations in the Middle East resented us far longer than anything that you mentioned. These things may be recruiting tools, but if they weren’t, they would find something else. The fact that the U.S. had troops in the land of Mecca was used as a recruiting tool (and justification for numerous terror attacks), or the 1991 Persian Gulf War was later a recruiting tool, or the U.S. support for Israel has always been a recruiting tool.

    I had a professor at the National Defense University who always said that the Middle East was like a bowl of jello. It was easy to push inside, but whatever progress was made would just fill back in very quickly. People in the Middle East have held grudges for 100s of years and never seem to move forward.

    Egypt is a perfect example of that — they are right back where they were two years ago. They have a brutal leader who is repressing human rights, except that now it is someone that is hostile to the U.S. and western values. This was easily foreseeable. We should have supported Mubarak in exchange for democratic reforms. There is no guarantee this COA would have worked, but it would at least have provided a signal that we support our friends and could have contained the instability.

    I could go on regarding the other issues as well. This reflexive support of Hillary is much like support for Obama in the last election. Rather than list his accomplishments, everyone discussed why his poor performance was acceptable. The same goes for Hillary. She has accomplished very little, but people explain it away by stating that she performed well under difficult circumstances. The reality is that there are always difficult circumstances for the State Department, and truly admirable Secretaries of State rise above those difficulties to perform measurable achievements that advance the interests of the U.S.

    Maybe you can think of something, but I cannot come up with anything like that for Hillary.

    • January 29th, 2013 at 08:31 | #36

      I don’t think you and I even live in the same country. (I haven’t gotten to planet yet.)

      What do you listen to and what do you read that makes you think that everyone discussed Obama’s performance as poor?

      You must travel with a very narrow group of people. I can think of all sorts of Obama accomplishments from his first term. You might not like all those accomplishments but if those were his goals and he met them, I would say those are accomplishments.

      He pretty much kept the nation out of national depression. He appointed 2 supreme court justices I approve of. He supported women’s reporductive rights. He got a health care package that allows young adults to stay on a parent policy, eliminates pre-existing conditions from being denied insurance, and allows one to transport insurance if you lose your job. He also helped save the auto industry. He acknowledged that there is something called climate change….shall I go on?

  28. blue
    January 29th, 2013 at 09:06 | #37

    @Moon-howler

    Moon, you are showing your age.. looking at Hillory and Obama through those old rose colored hippie glasses again. They really need to stay in the trunk.

    Good review Kelly. Those that have had boots on the ground have an important perspective to provide.

    • January 29th, 2013 at 09:25 | #38

      Blue, you are showing your ignorance.

      Read the title of the thread you commented under. Do you see Hillary or Obama anywhere in that title? If not, then sdastfu.

      You are getting ready to learn about my age and it doesn’t really have much peace out bro in it.

  29. blue
    January 29th, 2013 at 10:07 | #39

    Well shout me down and call me names.

    So far Obama has prolonged the national depression. He appointed 2 political supreme court justices who have no regard for the constitution or the law. He supported entitlement after entitlement in order to do the pide piper thing into the election— buying votes with taxpayer money. He has screwed up health care so bad that not only are actual medical costs going up, research is down, equipment investment is down, insurance costs are rising and he has put untold millions out of work- and its just getting started. No , I do not beleive that allowing young adults to stay on a parent policy is worth the trade off. Eliminating pre-existing conditions from being denied insurance – ok that I agree with that, but could have been accomplished with out the other BS — same re transporting insurance if you lose your job and where is the insurance accross state lines? Ask Ford if he helped save the auto industry. I am so sick of people who do have an understanding of bankruptcy proceedures defending Obama on that one. New report out today on global warming – matching computer simulations with actuals– not happening….shall I go on?

    • January 29th, 2013 at 12:42 | #40

      Please do. You might want to call it your swan song. Shriek shriek shriek……..

      I have no intentions of shouting you down. I was just planning on cutting your mic, as it were.

  30. kelly_3406
    January 29th, 2013 at 16:27 | #41

    Moon-howler :
    What do you listen to and what do you read that makes you think that everyone discussed Obama’s performance as poor?

    Sure you did. To give one example, you give excuses for why undeniably poor unemployment numbers are acceptable four years after he took office. As for your second paragraph, I view only the elimination of pre existing conditions as positive accomplishments.

  31. middleman
    January 30th, 2013 at 17:24 | #42

    @kelly_3406
    Kelly, no reflexive support of Hillary here (your post #35). Especially since you’ve spent time on the ground there, I’m surprised that you would suggest that the US support a murderous dictator such as Mubarak. If we had, many would undoubtedly have screamed that Obama was propping up an evil dictator, and they’d be right. Hindsight is always 20/20, but calling the current situation in Egypt “easily foreseeable” is a bit much, don’t you think? The Egyptian people may yet prevail.

    In your post (#17), you said: “Whether one chooses to give “credit” to Obama or Hillary, the last four years have produced multiple diplomatic failures that eroded U.S. security,” and the point of my response was that it is beyond the pale to accuse the current administration of eroding our security when they’re still trying in part to repair the damage done in the previous eight years.

    For some of her successes, check here: http://www.policymic.com/articles/7045/hillary-clinton-for-2016-look-to-her-legacy-as-secretary-of-state

Comments are closed.