Sarah Palin: Establishment is trying to “crucify” Newt Gingrich

posted at 2:20 pm on January 27, 2012 by Tina Korbe

In an interview with Fox Business Network’s John Stossel yesterday, Sarah Palin said the establishment is trying to “crucify” Newt Gingrich.

Palin suggests that a double standard exists — that even conservative media members will criticize Gingrich, but ignore the flaws of Mitt Romney.

Palin is far from alone in this opinion. Whatever suspicions conservatives had that much of the media is in the tank for Mitt Romney were confirmed yesterday by Matt Drudge’s multiple-link assault on Newt Gingrich (which, to the detriment of my standing with some HA commenters, I found interesting and compelling enough to post about here). A sampling of the ire that the Drudge attack drew:

“Cherry-picked quotes, biased headlines and hyperlinks to Newt-hating op-eds in order to patch together an ugly and distorted mosaic of the former House speaker is not journalism,” Matt Barber, a blogger, wrote in a post titled “The Drudge Distort.” He continued, “It’s mercenary-style political prostitution.”

Another blog post declared Thursday to be “Bloody Thursday the Day the Drudge Report Sold Out.”

The writer said, “I have read the Drudge Report daily ever since he broke the Lewinsky story. I have NEVER seen him attack anyone with the volume of coverage and with the venom that he has attacked this Gingrich fellow.”

The blog post concluded, “On this Thursday, this quite bloody Thursday, I can only say, et tu Matt.” …

Rush Limbaugh, on his radio show on Thursday, also took note of the headlines, calling it a “coordinated” effort to smear Mr. Gingrich.

“Now, when I saw all it is stuff — and obviously it’s a coordinated document dump here, opposition research dump. It’s obviously coordinated,” said Mr. Limbaugh, who has not been a fan of Mr. Romney’s in the past.

On this subject, I’d like to offer this disclaimer: I know I’ve written more negative posts about Newt Gingrich than about Mitt Romney — but I’ve done it because I assumed the flaws in Romney’s record were more well-known — at least to my generation. We weren’t old enough to be attuned to politics during Gingrich’s speakership, but we did encounter Romney in the first GOP presidential primary in which we were eligible to vote.

The rest of the primaries promise to be this way — messy and vicious in all directions and with sensitivities also running high in all directions. At such a time, it’s helpful to remember what the end goal is. From my perspective, the end goal is to elect a president who would at least sign an Obamacare repeal bill, who will reduce spending across the board and who will actually move the ball forward on entitlement reform. Everybody probably has a different list of legislative and executive priorities — but there’s also probably a lot of overlap. What’s most important to you in a president?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8 9 10

The Romneybots are the bitter and desperate losers that trash conservatives. They are David Frum, David Brooks, Meghan McCain and Peggy Noonan types. Some of the Romneybots is this thread make those creeps look like paragons of virtue.

CoolChange80 on January 27, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Gelsomina on January 27, 2012 at 5:44 PM

In case you were wondering it is posts like these that I refer to

Jailbreak on January 27, 2012 at 2:26 PM

KeninCT on January 27, 2012 at 5:35 PM

I am a supporter of Gov. Sarah Palin and I’ll defend her and her family, especially her innocent children who have done no harm to anyone against all comers.

HerneTheHunter on January 27, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Think of it this way. Newter’s recollection of events is analogous to saying Boehner is responsible for the Nov 2010 Rep Shellacking. Newt taking credit for being part of Reagan’s accension is similar for Al Ghore proclaiming he invented the internet. History does repeat itself.

FlaMurph on January 27, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Think of it this way. Clinton was in office, he ran way far to the left with Hillary Care. Newt stepped in, articulated conservative values and points and put the GOP in control. Newt and Dick Morris moved Clinton to the center. Clinton and Gingrich balanced the budget, reformed welfare and Clinton was a success.

Those are the facts, Murph.

If we wanted Obama lite or Obama 2.0 we’d go for Romney. Gingrich has a record to run on, so does Obama.

A Nation is at stake. I just cannot trust Romney. A wolf in Obama’s clothing (if he has any, cuz we all know THAT emporer ain’t got no clothes on, dig it).

Key West Reader on January 27, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Think of it this way. Newter’s recollection of events is analogous to saying Boehner is responsible for the Nov 2010 Rep Shellacking. Newt taking credit for being part of Reagan’s accension is similar for Al Ghore proclaiming he invented the internet. History does repeat itself.

FlaMurph on January 27, 2012 at 5:46 PM

love the Al Gore analogy, priceless :-)

jimver on January 27, 2012 at 5:52 PM

And your washed-up former speaker is having trouble with my Gray Man. But he’s going to take it to Obama, yesirreee. LOL delusional.

Hey, didn’t you just say something like that?

Gunlock Bill on January 27, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Not really. When did I say Gingrich could beat Obama? You Mittbots are the delusional ones. “Mitt’s gonna do it, babyyyyyy!!! WIth independents and moderates ALONE!!!!” LOL Fools.

ddrintn on January 27, 2012 at 5:54 PM

haner, V7_Sport and Gunlock Bill are the attack chiwawa-chimp brigade along with csdeven.

I am sure they will be mean to me although I have done nothing wrong. Jane Goodall has been brought in to study their behavior.

SparkPlug on January 27, 2012 at 5:54 PM

I am a supporter of Gov. Sarah Palin and I’ll defend her and her family, especially her innocent children who have done no harm to anyone against all comers.

HerneTheHunter on January 27, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Wow, it’s the Sir Galahad of the Tea Party!

KeninCT on January 27, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Question: If you are for socialized medicine, doesn’t that make you a socialist by definition?

This is the third time that I have asked this question on this thread without answer. Do we want to replace a communist (Obama) with a socialist (Romney) and declare victory? That’s like winning the battle and losing the war.

Kaffa on January 27, 2012 at 5:55 PM

The Romneybots are the bitter and desperate losers that trash conservatives. They are David Frum, David Brooks, Meghan McCain and Peggy Noonan types. Some of the Romneybots is this thread make those creeps look like paragons of virtue.

CoolChange80 on January 27, 2012 at 5:51 PM

I agree.

SparkPlug on January 27, 2012 at 5:55 PM

LazyHips on January 27, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Really?

HerneTheHunter on January 27, 2012 at 5:55 PM

It really doesn’t matter what the MSM wants – or Matt Drudge – because Conservatives will win in the end.

Newt has flaws – but at least nominating him would be a final nail in the coffin of the Establishment GOP.

If the establishment has enough octane left in them to get Mitt nominated – well, Conservatives will either sit at home in November or go and vote for Obama (as I will). Conservatives got the blame for sitting home and causing the McCain loss. If you think that was bad it was nothing compared to the ass whipping Romney will get because McCain DID have Sarah Palin at least to attract some of the Conservatives to the polls.

Romney won’t be anywhere near that smart. He’ll nominate an establishment hack as his VP – or someone who he thinks LOOKS like a Tea Party guy but is transparently in the establishment tank.

So we beat Mitt now or we beat him later in November. Matters not to me.

But the establishment need to be TAUGHT – they cannot force RINOS on us and expect to win. You would have thought they’d have learned that lesson in ’96 and ’08 – but they are too stupid to get it.

HondaV65 on January 27, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Wow, it’s the Sir Galahad of the Tea Party!

KeninCT on January 27, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Hmm. Beats being a trollish scumbag.

CW on January 27, 2012 at 5:56 PM

KeninCT on January 27, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Hmm. Beats being a trollish scumbag.

CW on January 27, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Is Ken a troll?

SparkPlug on January 27, 2012 at 5:57 PM

On this subject, I’d like to offer this disclaimer: I know I’ve written more negative posts about Newt Gingrich than about Mitt Romney — but I’ve done it because I assumed the flaws in Romney’s record were more well-known — at least to my generation. We weren’t old enough to be attuned to politics during Gingrich’s speakership, but we did encounter Romney in the first GOP presidential primary in which we were eligible to vote.

posted at 2:20 pm on January 27, 2012 by Tina Korbe

Tina, that is one of the most disingenuous remark I’ve ever read on HA. I’m old enough to have voted during Newt’s speakership. A journalist does not assume that they don’t write the truth because they assume everyone already knows it. Seems like you have a heck of a lot growing up to do. In the meantime, don’t try to snow your readers thinking they will not know your biases.

NOMOBO on January 27, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Mitt Romneybots are really closet Obamadrones at the end of the day. Look at their moronic attacks. They are petty and irrational. Heck some of them are even Trig Truthers and a lot them insult her children and family. I am embarassed to be in the same party as some of these Romneybots and they are the problem. The are a desperate hateful minority in the republican party. The Mittbots are Charlie Crist, Lisa Murkowski, and Scott Brown republicans which translates into Liberals!

CoolChange80 on January 27, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Hmm. Beats being a trollish scumbag.

CW on January 27, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Would you like to join the Round Table too?

KeninCT on January 27, 2012 at 6:00 PM

“Mitt’s gonna do it, babyyyyyy!!! WIth independents and moderates ALONE!!!!” LOL Fools.

ddrintn on January 27, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Mitt will get plenty of conservatives, don’t kid yourself. And stop assuming that Hot Air is representative of the Republican electorate as a whole because it isnt.

Go RBNY on January 27, 2012 at 6:01 PM

Wow, it’s the Sir Galahad of the Tea Party!

KeninCT on January 27, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Says the slime of the beltway establishment….

idesign on January 27, 2012 at 6:01 PM

KendraWilder on January 27, 2012 at 5:51 PM

.
The reason Newton is so despised by the “establishment” is because he comprised their principles and “integrity” back in the day with his shenanigans- politically and personally. Forget Mittens for a minute. You have to ask yourself- how could Newter have ever been in a place to hook up with a vile hateful woman like Pelosi? Could you ? and The Paul Ryan thing. He has gone out of his way to make some people unhappy recently. That woman is as vile as they come.
I know Newt is a changed man and all that. But don’t start throwing integral elements of the Republican side under the bus (just as Palin is getting with Mitt people) for some temporary satisfaction with a politician. People need to also look past November.

FlaMurph on January 27, 2012 at 6:01 PM

Who’s that? I’m not following anyone, Mittbot.

ddrintn on January 27, 2012 at 5:49 PM

Cool..:)

Dire Straits on January 27, 2012 at 5:51 PM

For the record I am not a mittbot..I asked a question of you and you answered it in a response to another poster..Thanks..:)

Dire Straits on January 27, 2012 at 6:02 PM

Is Ken a troll?

SparkPlug on January 27, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Ken supports Obama.

Kataklysmic on January 27, 2012 at 6:02 PM

Question: If you are for socialized medicine, doesn’t that make you a socialist by definition?

This is the third time that I have asked this question on this thread without answer. Do we want to replace a communist (Obama) with a socialist (Romney) and declare victory? That’s like winning the battle and losing the war.

Kaffa on January 27, 2012 at 5:55 PM

The enactment of MassCare was an experiment, in one state. As Gov, Romney proposed it, the legislature adopted it and it was made law. That is called state’s rights.

The differences between MassCare and ObamaCare are vast. We are too focused on the “mandate” issue, which is good. But the impact of ObamaCare will mean the destruction of private health insurers. Once the private insurers are destroyed, they can never come back.

The most productive way to begin reform of health insurance will be to allow carriers to sell across state lines. That opens up competition, which will automatically lower rates.

Think of it this way. I live in Floriduh… My health care expenses are larger because we are a state of retirees. If I moved to New Hampshire or Vermont, the demographics change, thereby lowering my rates.

Allow the carriers to cross State lines.

A very, very, very simple answer.

Key West Reader on January 27, 2012 at 6:03 PM

The desperation and hate from the Romneybots is proof that we are winning the against them. We won’t be asleep at the wheel. Even if Gingrich loses Florida we have 46 more states, 53 if you are Obama. We will beat the establishment either way. Either Romney loses in the primary or he gets crushed by Obama.

CoolChange80 on January 27, 2012 at 6:03 PM

For the record I am not a mittbot..I asked a question of you and you answered it in a response to another poster..Thanks..:)

Dire Straits on January 27, 2012 at 6:02 PM

Whatever Dire. We know all about your Ken Doll collection. /

;)

Kataklysmic on January 27, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Question: If you are for socialized medicine, doesn’t that make you a socialist by definition? Kaffa on January 27, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Massachusetts doesn’t have socialized medicine. Requiring free riders to purchase a private insurance policy or pay a fine does not create a socialist system. In fact you have it exactly backwards. Requiring taxpayers to pay the health care costs of free riders is more akin to socialism.

Basilsbest on January 27, 2012 at 6:04 PM

“The Establishment” is just a fancy way to say “they”.

There’s always a “they”, saying something you don’t like.

MayBee on January 27, 2012 at 2:32 PM

If you don’t think there is an elite, beltway establishment controlling the Republican party than you and your party hack ilk are more ignorant than the OWSers. BOTH PARTIES ARE THE PROBLEM and until people like you wake up this nation will continue to decline, no matter which crappy candidate of either crappy party gets elected.

AttaBoyLuther on January 27, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Newt has flaws – but at least nominating him would be a final nail in the coffin of the Establishment GOP.

HondaV65 on January 27, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Right, the former head of Congress turned K-Street lobbyist would be the final nail in the Establishment GOP. Makes sense.

Go RBNY on January 27, 2012 at 6:04 PM

You’re pretty rude for a noob.

Key West Reader on January 27, 2012 at 5:25 PM

He’s not a noob. He used to spell his handle differently.

kingsjester on January 27, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Is it one of the ban-hammer reincarnates?

Key West Reader on January 27, 2012 at 5:31 PM

I don’t know if he ever got the hammer or not…

kingsjester on January 27, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Don’t call me a poster… I am a motivational speaker

apocalypse on January 27, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Question: If you are for socialized medicine, doesn’t that make you a socialist by definition?

This is the third time that I have asked this question on this thread without answer. Do we want to replace a communist (Obama) with a socialist (Romney) and declare victory? That’s like winning the battle and losing the war.

Kaffa on January 27, 2012 at 5:55 PM

So is your person Newt? He supported the individual mandate in the past and even defended Romney and what he had to deal with regarding the Mass. Health law. . He in fact has said all sorts of nice things about big govt. liberals. FDR was his favorite. I must assume the you are a Paul man.

Also, what was Bush? Was he a socialist?

CW on January 27, 2012 at 6:05 PM

Romney supporters are minority of the electorate in every state except the land of the magic underwear.

CoolChange80 on January 27, 2012 at 6:06 PM

The desperation and hate from the Romneybots is proof that we are winning the against them.

CoolChange80 on January 27, 2012 at 6:03 PM

You’re a living, breathing Monty Python skit.

Go RBNY on January 27, 2012 at 6:06 PM

Is Ken a troll?

SparkPlug on January 27, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Do you know what “understatement” means?

CW on January 27, 2012 at 6:07 PM

Ken offer very little to the conversation. That is plain and clear.

CW on January 27, 2012 at 6:08 PM

Kataklysmic on January 27, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Lolz..:)

PS..It was weird in that ddrintn answered my question when he was responding to someone else..:)

Dire Straits on January 27, 2012 at 6:08 PM

Really?

HerneTheHunter on January 27, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Yes, really. You have absolutely no idea how old this Sheryl is, nor what she looks like. I know plenty of very attractive women (many who are much younger than Gov Palin) who are not in complete agreement with some of her policies who love how they look (some are veritable mirror addicts :-) )
and do not want to look like Palin, nor are jealous of her looks. I know one in particular who is five feet nine, beautiful thick blonde hair ( and wouldn’t want brown hair) , blue eyes and that girl isn’t jealous of anyone, and she doesn’t like Palin’s policies, so no, I don’t agree with you at all.

LazyHips on January 27, 2012 at 6:08 PM

But the establishment need to be TAUGHT – they cannot force RINOS on us and expect to win. You would have thought they’d have learned that lesson in ’96 and ’08 – but they are too stupid to get it.

HondaV65 on January 27, 2012 at 5:55 PM

yet they did force RINOS on ‘you’ and not won in 2000 and 2004 :-)..oh, and in 1988 too :-)…

jimver on January 27, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Why spend $.50 on gas to waste your vote?

If that’s what counts as “conservative” now days you can have it.

Stay at home thumbsuckers for Obama, that’s what it really is.

NoDonkey on January 27, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Good to know you aren’t conservative. Or at least a spineless one with no principles whatsoever.

Face it. We’ve already lost. Be prepared for a humiliating defeat to Obama in the general.

The conservative movement is now officially DOA.

Myron Falwell on January 27, 2012 at 6:09 PM

You’re a living, breathing Monty Python skit.

Go RBNY on January 27, 2012 at 6:06 PM

You’re still a hater….

idesign on January 27, 2012 at 6:09 PM

‘won in 2004 and 2008′ that is…

jimver on January 27, 2012 at 6:09 PM

I’m not saying the “establishment” is unreasonable. I think they are the epitome of reason. I don’t fault their logic at all. I simply oppose their motivation.

Remember, the downballot concerns are simply to gain Republican power. It certainly isn’t to promote conservative principles.

I’m a conservative. To me that means reducing government. Not slowing growth, cutting the size of government. None of what they’re after accomplishes that for me. I’ve concluded that entrenched RINOs may in fact be worse than liberal Dems. At least you can fight and oppose a liberal Dem.

Now, I’ll confess, it’s nice to have folks in positions of power, when you need them. There’s much to be gained (personally) from that. If advancing self is the most thing, then sure, there’s lots to be said for getting our folks in those positions.

However, I think those that promote self are chasing after false gods. I think the country needs to return to founding principles, that is conservatism. That’s not what the establishment is after. I wish they were.

TitularHead on January 27, 2012 at 5:40 PM

You have me at a bit of a disadvantage here because you’ve stated you know some establishment-types but not gone any more into it than that. Care to provide a bit more detail? Are we talking actual Congresscritters? High-ranking staffers? Media-types? Are they just totally devoid of any conservative ideology whatsoever?

alchemist19 on January 27, 2012 at 6:09 PM

The desperation and hate from the Romneybots is proof that we are winning the against them.

CoolChange80 on January 27, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Wait I was just going to say with all the hate spewed towards the Romney fans it is clear the Newt fans are getting desperate. Hmmm.Weird. /

CW on January 27, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Why can’t Matt Drudge write whatever he wants? It’s his web page.
If you want fair create your own page and pretend it’s fair. It’s no secret he leans towards his party/candidate. Is this really news to anybody? The only people upset about it are Newton Leroy Gingrich supporters. So what. They’re fun to upset.

Buttercup on January 27, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Aitch748 on January 27, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Things certainly changed around here with the Open Registrations.

kingsjester on January 27, 2012 at 2:58 PM

You are so right. The site has become for all intents unreadable. Just as steady flow of ad hominem attacks. Pointless

kirkbride on January 27, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Mitt will get plenty of conservatives, don’t kid yourself. And stop assuming that Hot Air is representative of the Republican electorate as a whole because it isnt.

Go RBNY on January 27, 2012 at 6:01 PM

Yeah, come to think of it when election day comes that may be the only ones who’ll vote for the milquetoast.

ddrintn on January 27, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Drudge SHILLING for Romney in 2008

apocalypse on January 27, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Romney supporters are minority of the electorate in every state except the land of the magic underwear.

CoolChange80 on January 27, 2012 at 6:06 PM

The supporters of each of our candidates has had the support of a minority of the electorate in every state so far. Were you going somewhere with that line of reasoning?

alchemist19 on January 27, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Drudge SHILLING for Romney in 2008

apocalypse on January 27, 2012 at 6:11 PM

You should also include the link to Rush shilling/endorsing Romney in 2008. And DeMint endorsing him too. Bring back quotes from all those RINO squishes who made Mitt out to be some great conservative alternative.

alchemist19 on January 27, 2012 at 6:12 PM

idesign on January 27, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Sarah’s stalker has found a new love in Newt. Sarah wipes her brow.

CW on January 27, 2012 at 6:13 PM

The enactment of MassCare was an experiment, in one state. As Gov, Romney proposed it, the legislature adopted it and it was made law. That is called state’s rights.

The differences between MassCare and ObamaCare are vast. We are too focused on the “mandate” issue, which is good. But the impact of ObamaCare will mean the destruction of private health insurers. Once the private insurers are destroyed, they can never come back.

The most productive way to begin reform of health insurance will be to allow carriers to sell across state lines. That opens up competition, which will automatically lower rates.

Think of it this way. I live in Floriduh… My health care expenses are larger because we are a state of retirees. If I moved to New Hampshire or Vermont, the demographics change, thereby lowering my rates.

Allow the carriers to cross State lines.

A very, very, very simple answer.

Key West Reader on January 27, 2012 at 6:03 PM

However you frame it. It is socialized medicine whether instituted by the state, the feds, or the UN. Why is the government involved in healthcare? Where is the healthcare section in the constitution?

It is very simple. If you are for any kind of socialized medicine you are a socialist by definition. (BTW I agree with your allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines i.e. get the government out of medical insurance.) With Romney we may win the white house, but we lose the country to creeping socailism.

Kaffa on January 27, 2012 at 6:15 PM

I know I’ve written more negative posts about Newt Gingrich than about Mitt Romney — but I’ve done it because I assumed the flaws in Romney’s record were more well-known — at least to my generation. We weren’t old enough to be attuned to politics during Gingrich’s speaker-ship,

I’m sorry, but by your reasoning, more positive stories about the Speaker would need to be written as well.

lynncgb on January 27, 2012 at 6:16 PM

idesign on January 27, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Sarah’s stalker has found a new love in Newt. Sarah wipes her brow.

CW on January 27, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Being not so keen on Romney doesn’t make one a Newt fan, genius.

ddrintn on January 27, 2012 at 6:16 PM

CW on January 27, 2012 at 6:13 PM

The Cronic wanker is back…LOL

idesign on January 27, 2012 at 6:17 PM

Has Todd commented? Of course Todd only communicates by grimacing and fingering his goatee so I don’t imagine that a transcript of anything that he “said” exists.

KeninCT on January 27, 2012 at 6:19 PM

If I vote for Romney I get socialism on the slow track.

If I don’t vote for Romney I get socialism on the fast track.

I guess I prefer the slow track, and I’ll work for a majority in the Senate, and keeping the same in Congress.

What irks me is that the 53% who ignored Obama’s past didn’t teach us anything. Romney has left us a very clear record, all of it LIBERAL. Wow, he’s a businessman? So is the CEO of GE. So is Soros.

I had a very difficult time voting for McCain. If the R nominee is going to be Romney it’s going to be a lot harder.

sloopy on January 27, 2012 at 6:20 PM

On this subject, I’d like to offer this disclaimer: I know I’ve written more negative posts about Newt Gingrich than about Mitt Romney — but I’ve done it because I assumed the flaws in Romney’s record were more well-known — at least to my generation. We weren’t old enough to be attuned to politics during Gingrich’s speakership, but we did encounter Romney in the first GOP presidential primary in which we were eligible to vote.

Tina Korbe on Jan 27, 2012 2:20 PM

Most childish.

tinkerthinker on January 27, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Much respect to tinkerthinker…

apocalypse on January 27, 2012 at 6:21 PM

Sarah’s stalker has found a new love in Newt. Sarah wipes her brow.

CW on January 27, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Why do you love Newt? He is not that great. Its just that Romney is no prize so I can see why you might LIKE Newt.

SparkPlug on January 27, 2012 at 6:21 PM

It is very simple. If you are for any kind of socialized medicine you are a socialist by definition. (BTW I agree with your allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines i.e. get the government out of medical insurance.) With Romney we may win the white house, but we lose the country to creeping socailism.

Kaffa on January 27, 2012 at 6:15 PM

really? what is Tricare (the military medical healthcare) other than ‘socialized care’ in your books? Why don’t you revolt against it as much as you do against ‘romneycare’ and all…

jimver on January 27, 2012 at 6:22 PM

Some folks may need to review their posts from last Sat’s SC Open thread so they will not embarrass themselves..IMHO..:)

Dire Straits on January 27, 2012 at 6:22 PM

You should also include the link to Rush shilling/endorsing Romney in 2008. And DeMint endorsing him too. Bring back quotes from all those RINO squishes who made Mitt out to be some great conservative alternative.

alchemist19 on January 27, 2012 at 6:12 PM

In fairness to Rush et al, Romney is not running the same type of campaign that he did in 2008. He did a lot of outreach to the conservative base then. My take is that he’s not doing that this time because he’s operating under the erroneous assumption that acting too conservative is what cost him the nomination in 2008. It didn’t. As ddrintn correctly pointed out upthread, the reason why he didn’t get the nomination is because it wasn’t his “turn”.

Kataklysmic on January 27, 2012 at 6:22 PM

Allow the carriers to cross State lines.

A very, very, very simple answer.

Key West Reader on January 27, 2012 at 6:03 PM

.
A very lucid explanation. Kudos.
Now if you would, please explain to those who are just learning, how medicare/medicaid-Kidcare etc. are all govt. administered social welfare programs that are basically socialized medical programs.
Thanks.

FlaMurph on January 27, 2012 at 6:22 PM

Mitt romney flip-flops.

h/t Dana Loesch

http://instagr.am/p/lPHpu/

HerneTheHunter on January 27, 2012 at 6:23 PM

Has Todd commented? Of course Todd only communicates by grimacing and fingering his goatee so I don’t imagine that a transcript of anything that he “said” exists.

KeninCT on January 27, 2012 at 6:19 PM

If only that he were telling me to watch my salt intake while shotgunning spare ribs. Or taking $4 mil Hawaiian vacations on my dime.

Kataklysmic on January 27, 2012 at 6:23 PM

Now if you would, please explain to those who are just learning, how medicare/medicaid-Kidcare etc. are all govt. administered social welfare programs that are basically socialized medical programs.
Thanks.

FlaMurph on January 27, 2012 at 6:22 PM

you forgot Tricare (the military cradle-to grave ‘socialist’ healthcare)…

jimver on January 27, 2012 at 6:24 PM

Has Todd commented? Of course Todd only communicates by grimacing and fingering his goatee so I don’t imagine that a transcript of anything that he “said” exists.

KeninCT on January 27, 2012 at 6:19 PM

.
C’mon- Thats not helpful for anyone.
Everyone is starting to carp like dishonest liberal demonrats.

FlaMurph on January 27, 2012 at 6:26 PM

Of course it’s obvious… anyone using their head for more than a hat rack already knew Matt Drudge was a Romney SHILL back in 2008, you know, but I am talking about yesterday… I was one of the first ones to report the OVERT Drudge attack on Gingrich yesterday… he’s not even hiding it anymore… PAY HOMAGE

apocalypse on January 27, 2012 at 5:39 PM

What bothers me about it is that he does it while conveniently omitting most of the negative stories on Mitt. And what bothers me more than that is he seems to think we need his help deciding. I expect to have my intelligence insulted by the MSM. I wasn’t expecting it from Drudge.

Kataklysmic on January 27, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Thanks for speaking truth Kataklysmic… they don’t even hide anymore what they’re gonna do… they just do it

apocalypse on January 27, 2012 at 6:26 PM

KeninCT on January 27, 2012 at 6:19 PM,
We really need a better class of troll.

CoolChange80 on January 27, 2012 at 6:27 PM

C’mon- Thats not helpful for anyone.
Everyone is starting to carp like dishonest liberal demonrats.

FlaMurph on January 27, 2012 at 6:26 PM

***pssst*** KeninCT is a liberal Democrat

Kataklysmic on January 27, 2012 at 6:28 PM

I expect to have my intelligence insulted by the MSM. I wasn’t expecting it from Drudge.

Kataklysmic on January 27, 2012 at 5:43 PM

AMEN!

sloopy on January 27, 2012 at 6:28 PM

FlaMurph on January 27, 2012 at 5:31 PM

Geez, forget a sarc tag and you have the “sarc police” on you. Thought you’d be able to figure it out with the “Lol” at the end, guess I was wrong. :)

noneoftheabove on January 27, 2012 at 6:28 PM

really? what is Tricare (the military medical healthcare) other than ‘socialized care’ in your books? Why don’t you revolt against it as much as you do against ‘romneycare’ and all…

jimver on January 27, 2012 at 6:22 PM

cause it’s not.

Because it’s not. No-body on romney care puts their life in harms way so they can have insurance. BTW our congress critters have us pay for theirs, what’s that called?

tinkerthinker on January 27, 2012 at 6:30 PM

Question:
Who exactly is the Republican Establishment if it isn’t Neut?

Count to 10 on January 27, 2012 at 6:34 PM

Of course it’s obvious… anyone using their head for more than a hat rack already knew Matt Drudge was a Romney SHILL back in 2008, you know, but I am talking about yesterday… I was one of the first ones to report the OVERT Drudge attack on Gingrich yesterday… he’s not even hiding it anymore… PAY HOMAGE

apocalypse on January 27, 2012 at 5:39 PM

Say what you will about Matt Drudge, but I like him. Perhaps he dealt you a bit of a head fake?

Key West Reader on January 27, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Well Drudge doesn’t much care for you if he passes himself off to you as a person who professes to be neutral but he really isn’t…

apocalypse on January 27, 2012 at 6:34 PM

Sheesh, I really don’t want to get into too many personal details. Yeah, there’s some in both legislative branches that would greet on a first-name basis. There’s a wall of pics w/ TitHead & the Cheneys, McCains, Roves, etc of the world. Heck, they’ll probably talk me into coughing up enough to get one w/ Mitt too, before long (shudder). I’ve also benefited by “friendships.” The power to appoint is huge for these guys.

They’re by no means devoid of conservative principles, and for the most part, decent folks. Heck, I’m not judging them. Those can be tough positions to be in. The pressures and temptations are huge. What’s the old saying? “They go to do good, and stay and do well.” Some are corrupted. Others are muzzled. Others do the best they can.

And the government keeps growing, which to me means less liberty and less freedom. The debt keeps getting bigger and I think we’re headed for serious trouble.

I’ve enjoyed the civil back and forth, but I’m gonna have to focus some time on Mrs. TitHead, or be in trouble. Take care.

TitularHead on January 27, 2012 at 6:35 PM

BTW our congress critters have us pay for theirs, what’s that called?

tinkerthinker on January 27, 2012 at 6:30 PM

It’s called Disgusting

LazyHips on January 27, 2012 at 6:35 PM

Cannibals in the GOP Establishment Employ tactics of the Left.

We have witnessed something very disturbing this week. The Republican establishment which fought Ronald Reagan in the 1970s and which continues to fight the grassroots Tea Party movement today has adopted the tactics of the left in using the media and the politics of personal destruction to attack an opponent.

We have witnessed something very disturbing this week. The Republican establishment which fought Ronald Reagan in the 1970s and which continues to fight the grassroots Tea Party movement today has adopted the tactics of the left in using the media and the politics of personal destruction to attack an opponent.
 
We will look back on this week and realize that something changed. I have given numerous interviews wherein I espoused the benefits of thorough vetting during aggressive contested primary elections, but this week’s tactics aren’t what I meant. Those who claim allegiance to Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment should stop and think about where we are today. Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, the fathers of the modern conservative movement, would be ashamed of us in this primary. Let me make clear that I have no problem with the routine rough and tumble of a heated campaign. As I said at the first Tea Party convention two years ago, I am in favor of contested primaries and healthy, pointed debate. They help focus candidates and the electorate. I have fought in tough and heated contested primaries myself. But what we have seen in Florida this week is beyond the pale. It was unprecedented in GOP primaries. I’ve seen it before – heck, I lived it before – but not in a GOP primary race.
 
I am sadly too familiar with these tactics because they were used against the GOP ticket in 2008. The left seeks to single someone out and destroy his or her record and reputation and family using the media as a channel to dump handpicked and half-baked campaign opposition research on the public. The difference in 2008 was that I was largely unknown to the American public, so they had no way of differentiating between the lies and the truth. All of it came at them at once as “facts” about me. But Newt Gingrich is known to us – both the good and the bad.
 
We know that Newt fought in the trenches during the Reagan Revolution. As Rush Limbaugh pointed out, Newt was among a handful of Republican Congressman who would regularly take to the House floor to defend Reagan at a time when conservatives didn’t have Fox News or talk radio or conservative blogs to give any balance to the liberal mainstream media. Newt actually came at Reagan’s administration “from the right” to remind Americans that freer markets and tougher national defense would win our future. But this week a few handpicked and selectively edited comments which Newt made during his 40-year career were used to claim that Newt was somehow anti-Reagan and isn’t conservative enough to go against the accepted moderate in the primary race. (I know, it makes no sense, and the GOP establishment hopes you won’t stop and think about this nonsense. Mark Levin and others have shown the ridiculousness of this.) To add insult to injury, this “anti-Reagan” claim was made by a candidate who admitted to not even supporting or voting for Reagan. He actually was against the Reagan movement, donated to liberal candidates, and said he didn’t want to go back to the Reagan days. You can’t change history. We know that Newt Gingrich brought the Reagan Revolution into the 1990s. We know it because none other than Nancy Reagan herself announced this when she presented Newt with an award, telling us, “The dramatic movement of 1995 is an outgrowth of a much earlier crusade that goes back half a century.  Barry Goldwater handed the torch to Ronnie, and in turn Ronnie turned that torch over to Newt and the Republican members of Congress to keep that dream alive.” As Rush and others pointed out, if Nancy Reagan had ever thought that Newt was in any way an opponent of her beloved husband, she would never have even appeared on a stage with him, let alone presented him with an award and said such kind things about him. Nor would Reagan’s son, Michael Reagan, have chosen to endorse Newt in this primary race. There are no two greater keepers of the Reagan legacy than Nancy and Michael Reagan. What we saw with this ridiculous opposition dump on Newt was nothing short of Stalin-esque re-writing of history. It was Alinsky tactics at their worst.
 
But this whole thing isn’t really about Newt Gingrich vs. Mitt Romney. It is about the GOP establishment vs. the Tea Party grassroots and independent Americans who are sick of the politics of personal destruction used now by both parties’ operatives with a complicit media egging it on. In fact, the establishment has been just as dismissive of Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. Newt is an imperfect vessel for Tea Party support, but in South Carolina the Tea Party chose to get behind him instead of the old guard’s choice. In response, the GOP establishment voices denounced South Carolinian voters with the same vitriol we usually see from the left when they spew hatred at everyday Americans “bitterly clinging” to their faith and their Second Amendment rights. The Tea Party was once again told to sit down and shut up and listen to the “wisdom” of their betters. We were reminded of the litany of Tea Party endorsed candidates in 2010 that didn’t win. Well, here’s a little newsflash to the establishment: without the Tea Party there would have been no historic 2010 victory at all.
 
I spoke up before the South Carolina primary to urge voters there to keep this primary going because I have great concern about the GOP establishment trying to anoint a candidate without the blessing of the grassroots and all the needed energy and resources we as commonsense constitutional conservatives could bring to the general election in order to defeat President Obama. Now, I respect Governor Romney and his success. But there are serious concerns about his record and whether as a politician he consistently applied conservative principles and how this impacts the agenda moving forward. The questions need answers now. That is why this primary should not be rushed to an end. We need to vet this. Pundits in the Beltway are gleefully proclaiming that this primary race is over after Florida, despite 46 states still not having chimed in. Well, perhaps it’s possible that it will come to a speedy end in just four days; but with these questions left unanswered, it will not have come to a satisfactory conclusion. Without this necessary vetting process, the unanswered question of Governor Romney’s conservative bona fides and the unanswered and false attacks on Newt Gingrich will hang in the air to demoralize many in the electorate. The Tea Party grassroots will certainly feel disenfranchised and disenchanted with the perceived orchestrated outcome from self-proclaimed movers and shakers trying to sew this all up. And, trust me, during the general election, Governor Romney’s statements and record in the private sector will be relentlessly parsed over by the opposition in excruciating detail to frighten off swing voters. This is why we need a fair primary that is not prematurely cut short by the GOP establishment using Alinsky tactics to kneecap Governor Romney’s chief rival.
 
As I said in my speech in Iowa last September, the challenge of this election is not simply to replace President Obama. The real challenge is who and what we will replace him with. It’s not enough to just change up the uniform. If we don’t change the team and the game plan, we won’t save our country. We truly need sudden and relentless reform in Washington to defend our republic, though it’s becoming clearer that the old guard wants anything but that. That is why we should all be concerned by the tactics employed by the establishment this week. We will not save our country by becoming like the left. And I question whether the GOP establishment would ever employ the same harsh tactics they used on Newt against Obama. I didn’t see it in 2008. Many of these same characters sat on their thumbs in ‘08 and let Obama escape unvetted. Oddly, they’re now using every available microscope and endoscope – along with rewriting history – in attempts to character assassinate anyone challenging their chosen one in their own party’s primary. So, one must ask, who are they really running against?
 
- Sarah Palin

 

idesign on January 27, 2012 at 6:35 PM

Jailbreak on January 27, 2012 at 2:26 PM

KeninCT on January 27, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Mitt Romney supporters going after Sarah Palin’s children. People who have done no harm to them or Mitt Romney whatsoever. Their only crime? Being Sarah Palin’s children.

Tell me what is the difference between these people (Mitt Romney supporters) and the rabid anti-Palin kooks at the dailykos?

HerneTheHunter on January 27, 2012 at 5:42 PM

Anyone who goes after the Palin kids should be banned, immediately.

Until you can show me where Sarah has intentionally lied about anything; to push an adgenda or cover something up. Where she has been involved in any kind of corruption and taken kick-backs or just plain screwed people out of their money. Anything that was unhonorable or dishonest. Until then she, and her family deserve respect.

I long for the day when Todd and Track show up at your doorstep and show you some “disrespect”. David Letterman, Bill Mahr, etc.

Mirimichi on January 27, 2012 at 6:36 PM

cause it’s not.

Because it’s not. No-body on romney care puts their life in harms way so they can have insurance. BTW our congress critters have us pay for theirs, what’s that called?

tinkerthinker on January 27, 2012 at 6:30 PM

it’s called the same…

jimver on January 27, 2012 at 6:36 PM

Regardless of whom you support in the primaries, its essential that we support the nominee regardless of who it is. Don’t tell me that if your guy doesn’t get in you’ll either stay at home or vote for BHO. That’s tantamount to RP running third party if he doesn’t get the nomination. If you’re willing to not support the party’s nominee then you are voting personality; that’s how we got BHO. I’m casting my vote on Tuesday. I hope my choice becomes the nominee. Regardless of who wins though, come November, my vote will be for the man with the R after his name.

Robbin Hood on January 27, 2012 at 6:36 PM

Of course it’s obvious… anyone using their head for more than a hat rack already knew Matt Drudge was a Romney SHILL back in 2008, you know, but I am talking about yesterday… I was one of the first ones to report the OVERT Drudge attack on Gingrich yesterday… he’s not even hiding it anymore… PAY HOMAGE

apocalypse on January 27, 2012 at 5:39 PM

P.S. Please offer any sort of proof that Drudge was a shill for Romney in 2008. I don’t remember that..

Key West Reader on January 27, 2012 at 5:45 PM

Drudge SHILLING for Romney in 2008… PS, Please Pay Homage

apocalypse on January 27, 2012 at 6:37 PM

Because it’s not. No-body on romney care puts their life in harms way so they can have insurance. BTW our congress critters have us pay for theirs, what’s that called?

tinkerthinker on January 27, 2012 at 6:30 PM

if you are against the idea of socialized medicine in general, then you should be consistent, that was my point…

jimver on January 27, 2012 at 6:39 PM

If Jesus appeared here today he’d be hated

apocalypse on January 27, 2012 at 6:41 PM

idesign on January 27, 2012 at 6:35 PM

I want Maw Maw Grizzly..:)

Dire Straits on January 27, 2012 at 6:41 PM

if you are against the idea of socialized medicine in general, then you should be consistent, that was my point…

jimver on January 27, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Read what I said again.

tinkerthinker on January 27, 2012 at 6:41 PM

Who should pay for your health care, you or the state? Requiring that free riders purchase insurance coverage or pay a fine is a more conservative approach than requiring that taxpayers pay for the health care costs of free riders.

Santorum has it backwards.

Basilsbest on January 27, 2012 at 6:42 PM

Cannibals in GOP Establishment Employ Tactics of the Left

We have witnessed something very disturbing this week. The Republican establishment which fought Ronald Reagan in the 1970s and which continues to fight the grassroots Tea Party movement today has adopted the tactics of the left in using the media and the politics of personal destruction to attack an opponent.

We will look back on this week and realize that something changed. I have given numerous interviews wherein I espoused the benefits of thorough vetting during aggressive contested primary elections, but this week’s tactics aren’t what I meant. Those who claim allegiance to Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment should stop and think about where we are today. Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, the fathers of the modern conservative movement, would be ashamed of us in this primary. Let me make clear that I have no problem with the routine rough and tumble of a heated campaign. As I said at the first Tea Party convention two years ago, I am in favor of contested primaries and healthy, pointed debate. They help focus candidates and the electorate. I have fought in tough and heated contested primaries myself. But what we have seen in Florida this week is beyond the pale. It was unprecedented in GOP primaries. I’ve seen it before – heck, I lived it before – but not in a GOP primary race.

I am sadly too familiar with these tactics because they were used against the GOP ticket in 2008. The left seeks to single someone out and destroy his or her record and reputation and family using the media as a channel to dump handpicked and half-baked campaign opposition research on the public. The difference in 2008 was that I was largely unknown to the American public, so they had no way of differentiating between the lies and the truth. All of it came at them at once as “facts” about me. But Newt Gingrich is known to us – both the good and the bad.

We know that Newt fought in the trenches during the Reagan Revolution. As Rush Limbaugh pointed out, Newt was among a handful of Republican Congressman who would regularly take to the House floor to defend Reagan at a time when conservatives didn’t have Fox News or talk radio or conservative blogs to give any balance to the liberal mainstream media. Newt actually came at Reagan’s administration “from the right” to remind Americans that freer markets and tougher national defense would win our future. But this week a few handpicked and selectively edited comments which Newt made during his 40-year career were used to claim that Newt was somehow anti-Reagan, and isn’t conservative enough to go against the accepted moderate in the primary race. (I know, it makes no sense, and the GOP establishment hopes you won’t stop and think about this nonsense. Mark Levin and others have shown the ridiculousness of this.) To add insult to injury, this “anti-Reagan” claim was made by a candidate who admitted to not even supporting or voting for Reagan. He actually was against the Reagan movement, donated to liberal candidates, and said he didn’t want to go back to the Reagan days. You can’t change history. We know that Newt Gingrich brought the Reagan Revolution into the 1990s. We know it because none other than Nancy Reagan herself announced this when she presented Newt with an award, telling us, “The dramatic movement of 1995 is an outgrowth of a much earlier crusade that goes back half a century. Barry Goldwater handed the torch to Ronnie, and in turn Ronnie turned that torch over to Newt and the Republican members of Congress to keep that dream alive.” As Rush and others pointed out, if Nancy Reagan had ever thought that Newt was in any way an opponent of her beloved husband, she would never have even appeared on a stage with him, let alone presented him with an award and said such kind things about him. Nor would Reagan’s son, Michael Reagan, have chosen to endorse Newt in this primary race. There are no two greater keepers of the Reagan legacy than Nancy and Michael Reagan. What we saw with this ridiculous opposition dump on Newt was nothing short of Stanlin-esque re-writing of history. It was Alinsky tactics at their worst.

But this whole thing isn’t really about Newt Gingrich vs. Mitt Romney. It is about the GOP establishment vs. the Tea Party grassroots and independent Americans who are sick of the politics of personal destruction used now by both parties’ operatives with a complicit media egging it on. In fact, the establishment has been just as dismissive of Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. Newt is an imperfect vessel for Tea Party support, but in South Carolina the Tea Party chose to get behind him instead of the old guard’s choice. In response, the GOP establishment voices denounced South Carolinian voters with the same vitriol we usually see from the left when they spew hatred at everyday Americans “bitterly clinging” to their faith and their Second Amendment rights. The Tea Party was once again told to sit down and shut up and listen to the “wisdom” of their betters. We were reminded of the litany of Tea Party endorsed candidates in 2010 that didn’t win. Well, here’s a little newsflash to the establishment: without the Tea Party there would have been no historic 2010 victory at all.

I spoke up before the South Carolina primary to urge voters there to keep this primary going because I have great concern about the GOP establishment trying to anoint a candidate without the blessing of the grassroots and all the needed energy and resources we as commonsense constitutional conservatives could bring to the general election in order to defeat President Obama. Now, I respect Governor Romney and his success. But there are serious concerns about his record and whether as a politician he consistently applied conservative principles and how this impacts the agenda moving forward. The questions need answers now. That is why this primary should not be rushed to an end. We need to vet this. Pundits in the Beltway are gleefully proclaiming that this primary race is over after Florida, despite 46 states still not having chimed in. Well, perhaps it’s possible that it will come to a speedy end in just four days; but with these questions left unanswered, it will not have come to a satisfactory conclusion. Without this necessary vetting process, the unanswered question of Governor Romney’s conservative bona fides and the unanswered and false attacks on Newt Gingrich will hang in the air to demoralize many in the electorate. The Tea Party grassroots will certainly feel disenfranchised and disenchanted with the perceived orchestrated outcome from self-proclaimed movers and shakers trying to sew this all up. And, trust me, during the general election, Governor Romney’s statements and record in the private sector will be relentlessly parsed over by the opposition in excruciating detail to frighten off swing voters. This is why we need a fair primary that is not prematurely cut short by the GOP establishment using Alinsky tactics to kneecap Governor Romney’s chief rival.

As I said in my speech in Iowa last September, the challenge of this election is not simply to replace President Obama. The real challenge is who and what we will replace him with. It’s not enough to just change up the uniform. If we don’t change the team and the game plan, we won’t save our country. We truly need sudden and relentless reform in Washington to defend our republic, though it’s becoming clearer that the old guard wants anything but that. That is why we should all be concerned by the tactics employed by the establishment this week. We will not save our country by becoming like the left. And I question whether the GOP establishment would ever employ the same harsh tactics they used on Newt against Obama. I didn’t see it in 2008. Many of these same characters sat on their thumbs in ‘08 and let Obama escape unvetted. Oddly, they’re now using every available microscope and endoscope – along with rewriting history – in attempts to character assassinate anyone challenging their chosen one in their own party’s primary. So, one must ask, who are they really running against?

- Sarah Palin

CoolChange80 on January 27, 2012 at 6:42 PM

If Jesus appeared here today he’d be hated

apocalypse on January 27, 2012 at 6:41 PM

If Jesus appears here today, all bets are off. I wonder what the odds are on Intrade?

Kaffa on January 27, 2012 at 6:43 PM

In case you were wondering it is posts like these that I refer to

Jailbreak on January 27, 2012 at 2:26 PM

KeninCT on January 27, 2012 at 5:35 PM

I am a supporter of Gov. Sarah Palin and I’ll defend her and her family, especially her innocent children who have done no harm to anyone against all comers.

HerneTheHunter on January 27, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Yes, I agree. I admire Palin, even though I don’t like her support for Gingrich. At the moment I think that Romney is the lesser of two evils. Gingrich would be the worst that could happen to conservatism.

Gelsomina on January 27, 2012 at 6:43 PM

I want Maw Maw Grizzly..:)

Dire Straits on January 27, 2012 at 6:41 PM

Did you read it?

idesign on January 27, 2012 at 6:44 PM

Peace to all the LEGITIMATE truth tellers… you are some dedicated warriors

apocalypse on January 27, 2012 at 6:44 PM

Did you read it?

idesign on January 27, 2012 at 6:44 PM

No..:)

Dire Straits on January 27, 2012 at 6:45 PM

No..:)

Dire Straits on January 27, 2012 at 6:45 PM

Figures….

idesign on January 27, 2012 at 6:46 PM

I am done talking for now… later bozo’s

apocalypse on January 27, 2012 at 6:46 PM

Did you read it?

idesign on January 27, 2012 at 6:44 PM

You could have posted the link and we could have read it on our own time..:)

Dire Straits on January 27, 2012 at 6:47 PM

- Sarah Palin

CoolChange80 on January 27, 2012 at 6:42 PM

She nailed it.

tinkerthinker on January 27, 2012 at 6:48 PM

What has Sarah ever done or said that makes her and authority about how to win elections? Her idea that we need to extend the primaries as long as possible is insane.

flataffect on January 27, 2012 at 4:32 PM

What exactly has Mitt ever done or said that makes him an authority on how to win elections? How many elections has he won and lost?

I’m not especially enamored of Palin, but the Romney cultists aren’t really doing themselves any favors with the hate they spew against her (and everybody else who doesn’t fall obediently into line behind their anointed one).

Walter Sobchak on January 27, 2012 at 6:49 PM

Palin is correct…..AGAIN!

There is a full-court press to destroy Gingrich, primarily because he is currently the largest threat to the liberal and GOP Establishment choice, Mittens.

Of the four candidates, only Mitt has zero history of standing up for conservatism or libertarianism.

I think the GOP Establishment is backing Mitt because many of them know he will lose, thereby setting up Jeb for 2016.

KirknBurker on January 27, 2012 at 6:49 PM

I am done talking for now… later bozo’s

apocalypse on January 27, 2012 at 6:46 PM

Bye-bye, tacolips.

M240H on January 27, 2012 at 6:49 PM

listens2glenn on January 27, 2012 at 5:30 PM

AGREED!

RedLizard64 on January 27, 2012 at 6:49 PM

idesign on January 27, 2012 at 6:44 PM

You and CoolChange80 need to coordinate! :-P

LazyHips on January 27, 2012 at 6:49 PM

CoolChange80 on January 27, 2012 at 6:42 PM

The GOP split is coming…and Sarah is going to lead the way. If Mitt is the nominee, it will happen.

idesign on January 27, 2012 at 6:49 PM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8 9 10