She also has a deep affinity for Trump’s ex-wife:
Sarah Palin, a commercial fisherman from Wasilla, told her husband on Tuesday she was driving to Anchorage to shop at Costco. Instead, she headed straight for Ivana. And there, at J.C. Penney's cosmetic department, was Ivana, the former Mrs. Donald Trump, sitting at a table next to a photograph of herself. She wore a light-colored pantsuit and pink fingernail polish. Her blonde hair was coiffed in a bouffant French twist.
“We want to see Ivana,” said Palin, who admittedly smells like salmon for a large part of the summer, “because we are so desperate in Alaska for any semblance of glamour and culture.”
That’s from the April 3, 1996, edition of the Anchorage Daily News, likely the very first mention of Palin in the press. She eventually seized plenty of glamour and celebrity of her own, of course. David’s piece on her endorsement of Trump touches on other comparisons:
Both [Trump and Palin] are candidates who have capitalized on their ability to speak to the grievances of white, working-class Americans. They delight in inflammatory rhetoric [...] and despise the press, even as their success depends in large part on managing to capture journalists’ attention. Both have a tendency to extemporize, producing sentences that are impossible to diagram and often to understand. Both have been reality-TV stars, though Trump rode his television fame to political success, while Palin rode her political success to a television contract.
A reader also compares the two:
Fareed Zakaria said it best about Sarah Palin: It’s not that she doesn't know the answer; it’s that she doesn’t understand the question. Donald Trump is only a step up in understanding the question, but he still doesn’t understand what his answers mean to democratic society or why everyone else answers differently.
On a second note, Trump is a publicity hound and so is Palin. The media feeds off them as outrageous characters creating exposure (for them and the media) and thus wealth through opportunity to exploit that exposure. It’s a great match for making a buck.
Another reader thinks the Palin endorsement is “good for Trump”:
It will get him a couple more days of free publicity, which is his campaign’s oxygen. Otherwise, it is fairly meaningless, since Palin’s time as a figure of consequence in American politics has come and gone. (Though I suspect that when she looks at Trump, she regrets her own decision not to run for president in 2012 and 2016.)
Having read a few of the articles about this endorsement, I continue to be confused by people who harp on policy preferences and political ideology of the Tea people and their leaders. It’s 2016, and by now it should be clear that the Tea Party has never had anything to do with ideology or policy. It is about class, race, religious, and geographic resentment and about the demagogues who are best able to tap into that resentment. If it was about ideology, Rand Paul would be riding a wave of tea to the GOP nomination as we speak.
Even though she said it before the Tea Party even existed, Palin summed up the core of what it’s all about when she started talking about “real America” and “real Americans.”
Or, in the current manifestation from Cruz, “New York values.”