So it turns out that Saint Sarah Palin, Profit of the Republican party, has trademarked her name. (h/t to TPM for the story.) Now some people of a less than clever nature have thought that this is an attempt by Sarah Palin® (gods that’s fun to type) is hoping to use the ® as a method of shutting down her critics. This is utterly wrong. You can trademark your name until you reach George Lucas levels of absurd legalisms (after all his company did try to trademark Nazi) and your opponents can still use your name and print all the horrid stories about you that they want. A trademarks will not stop that, nor will it stop satire and other forms of political attack. Further more I fully believe that Sarah Palin® knows all this and people who think this is her motive grossly underestimate her.
No, I think she has very good cause and reason to file for this trademark. Sarah Palin® is about celebrity and making money, she must move to protect her most valuable asset, he name and image. To protect any potential line of products, speeches or seminars she must trademark or risk getting ripped off by copy-cats and other intellectual property thieves. This is a smart and savvy business plan.
What this indicates to me though is she is not going to run for president. (As I have theorized at this blog before.) Those, like Andrew Sullivan, who quaked with fear at a Sarah Palin® candidacy were trembling at shadows. This woman is in her happy spot and I fully expect her to stay there for as long as it lasts. I suspect that will be until 2012 when it becomes clear that she is not running and interest in her wanes. She will not have a long politically oriented entertainment career like Rush Limbaugh. Hers will be brief and bright.
Do you remember the “Wiseguy” sequence with the white supremisists? I think of Palin along the same lines, except I do think she believes what she is selling.
As to responsibility, she didn’t awnt the responsibility of being a governor so why would anyone think she’d want the responsibility of being a president? Why is our political memory so short that we don’t remember someone walking off the job for no apparant reason?
To phrase it the way you did is to suggest her speeches and her positions are falsely presented solely for making money, and while others have accused her of this it is not what I said. I do believe that she is much happier with celebrity and money than with power and accountability.
So it’s all an act for the money?
I don’t know if I agree about the brief part but I do agree with all the rest.