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 7 8 9 10

Sarah Palin is terrific. She is on the right side of history. Mitt Romney no doubt was behind much of the lies about her.

CoolChange80 on January 27, 2012 at 6:50 PM

- Sarah Palin

idesign on January 27, 2012 at 6:35 PM

Thanks for posting.

I’m glad she’s on our side.

TitularHead on January 27, 2012 at 6:51 PM

You and CoolChange80 need to coordinate! :-P

LazyHips on January 27, 2012 at 6:49 PM

LOL

idesign on January 27, 2012 at 6:51 PM

The Romney supporters have so alienated the voters of other candidates, I just don’t see how he can seriously expect them to vote for him.

Obama with a GOP Senate and House is not so dangerous.

I’m scared of Mitt with a GOP Congress and how they will set in stone enough of the progressive policies that by 2016 the country is pretty much beyond the point of no return.

KirknBurker on January 27, 2012 at 6:51 PM

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

KeninCT on January 27, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Yah, it’s too bad we don’t have more of them.

KirknBurker on January 27, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Sarah Palin just launched a thousand points of fright at Team Romney and the Republican establishment who have been going after Newt’s relationship with Ronald Reagan, via Facebook:

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/01/sarah-palin-this-ridiculous-opposition-dump-on-newt-was-nothing-short-of-stanlin-esque-re-writing-of-history/

idesign on January 27, 2012 at 6:57 PM

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

KeninCT on January 27, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Yah, it’s too bad we don’t have more of them.

KirknBurker on January 27, 2012 at 6:54 PM

aww, how chivalrous :-)…the only thing left now is to sell Newt as King Arthur of the Tea Party :-)…you can drop ‘King’ if it doesn’t rhyme with the TP ideology :-)…

jimver on January 27, 2012 at 6:58 PM

- Sarah Palin

CoolChange80 on January 27, 2012 at 6:42 PM

She nailed it.

tinkerthinker on January 27, 2012 at 6:48 PM

+1

SparkPlug on January 27, 2012 at 6:59 PM

Sarah Palin is terrific. She is on the right side of history. Mitt Romney no doubt was behind much of the lies about her.

CoolChange80 on January 27, 2012 at 6:50 PM

I see a pattern with Cain, Perry, Palin. No wonder.

tinkerthinker on January 27, 2012 at 7:00 PM

Sarah Palin is terrific. She is on the right side of history.herstory..
CoolChange80 on January 27, 2012 at 6:50 PM

there, fixed it for you :-)…

jimver on January 27, 2012 at 7:01 PM

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

Salient

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

Scary

KirknBurker on January 27, 2012 at 6:49 PM

how did you pick this moniker?…hahaha

RedLizard64 on January 27, 2012 at 7:05 PM

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.

That is about as weak of an excuse I have ever read from a “journalist”…look at the posts, Romney’s record was not any more known…most of the posters hardly know who the VP is, or the Secretary of State is without Googling it….my my, we have a young excuse maker writing for HotAir.

right2bright on January 27, 2012 at 7:05 PM

idesign on January 27, 2012 at 6:57 PM

lol..Good job..:)

Dire Straits on January 27, 2012 at 7:06 PM

“They maybe subscribe such characterization of Newt via words like that, but they don’t subscribe those to say Mitt Romney when he or his surrogates do the same thing,” she said. “That’s that typical hypocrisy stuff in the media that I’ve lived with over a couple of decades in the political arena. So I’m used to it.”

“But in order to help educate the rest of the American public, I’ll articulate that it is hypocritical of the media to subscribe to one candidate and not another, that kind of angry attack muffin verbiage to one and not the other.” Sarah Palin

I am glad that Tina clarified for me what Palin was saying

galtani on January 27, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Sarah is different than she used to be, strident and loud. This new gal is not very appealing.As for attacks by or about either candidate, it’s how the game is played. Seem to recall Newt fans chalking it up to game usual when Romany was the target.

jeanie on January 27, 2012 at 7:10 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

CoolChange80 has exposed himself as nothing but a religious bigot. His candidate, the corrupt Newt Gingrich, is floundering, so all he and other haters like him can do is call names and throw tantrums.

CoolChange80 and people like him can’t deal with the fact that most people want nothing to do with Newt Gingrich (who is the LEAST conservative candidate running), the disgraced former speaker with a record of corruption and lying. With Newt Gingrich at the top of the Republican ticket, the Democrats would retake the House, strengthen their majority in the Senate, and Obama would win in a landslide. We all know it.

People like CoolChange80 and other bigoted Newt Gingrich supporters who jump to a new candidate every week love to lash out at other posters who disagree with them. These CoolChange80-types spend too much time in the blog bubble, and can’t fathom why everyone doesn’t take as gospel the words of Sarah Palin.

Now, and I say this as a former Sarah Palin fan and someone who still appreciates her effective criticism of Barack Obama, Sarah Palin is in no business to give anyone else campaign advice. Palin is really more of a self-promoting opportunist who didn’t even have the guts to finish her FIRST term as governor before quitting. Sarah Palin loses a lot of credibility when she endorses a corrupt man like Newt Gingrich, who is almost totally antithetical to what the Tea Party represents. Conservatives can find much better and more articulate leaders than the likes of Sarah Palin.

Sarah Palin has disappointed me. Newt Gingrich is a disgrace.

bluegill on January 27, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Do people really want to have a serious debate on Gingrich’s record?

In 1985, he called President Reagan’s rapprochement with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev potentially “the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Chamberlain in 1938 at Munich.”
(…)
True enough, but in politics deeds speak louder than words. And Newt Gingrich’s deeds all too often do not match his words. Since entering Congress, Gingrich has repeatedly voted for big government, deficit spending, welfare, foreign aid, regulatory intervention, and socialism. He has repeatedly voted to send U.S. taxpayer dollars to communist countries and to grant communist tyrannies such as Red China and the Soviet Union most favored nation (MFN) trade status, while demanding trade sanctions against South Africa.

Newt Gingrich’s rating on the Conservative Index (CI) of THE NEW AMERICAN, while better than many other members of Congress, is far from the stellar rating you would expect from one heralded as “the theoretician in chief” of the conservatives in Congress. His CI ratings for his eight terms in office have fluctuated between fairly good to mediocre to abysmal:

96th Congress: 84
97th Congress: 77
98th Congress: 74
99th Congress: 80
100th Congress: 80
101st Congress: 57
102nd Congress: 60
103rd Congress: 78

The following sample of votes shows only some of the many decidedly unconservative votes Gingrich has cast:

Welfare Madness. During his 16 years in Congress, Gingrich has inveighed vociferously against the evils of the New Deal/Great Society welfare state — while voting for every kind of welfare program imaginable: for the elderly, children, the “homeless,” businessmen, farmers, bankers, leftwing broadcasters, etc. Those votes include: March 21, 1991 — $30 billion to begin the unconstitutional bailout of failed savings and loan institutions; June 26, 1991 — $52.6 billion for agriculture programs, subsidies, and food stamps; October 5, 1992 — $66.5 billion for housing and community development; September 22, 1994 — $250.6 billion in appropriations for the Departments of Labor, HHS, and Education.

Budget-Busting Profligacy. A Balanced Budget Amendment forms the core of the first plank of Gingrich’s “Contract with America.” He has been calling for such a measure and condemning deficit spending ever since coming to Congress. In an early 1982 speech he called on Congress to reject further increases in the National Debt Limit. “Only by using the debt limit as a leverage point” he bravely declared, “can we force the changes which clearly the liberal leadership of this body wants to avoid.” Trouble is, a few months earlier, on February 5, 1981, he had voted with those same “liberals” to raise the National Debt ceiling by another $49.1 billion to $985 billion. He has gone this same route many times since.

Of course, raising the debt ceiling would not have been necessary had he practiced what he preached. His votes against “more frugal government” include: December 21, 1987 — $603.9 billion for 13 regular appropriation bills larded with many wasteful, extravagant, and unconstitutional items (it passed by a vote of 209 to 208); May 4, 1989 — outlays of $1.165 trillion and a deficit of $99 billion for a dishonest and spendthrift 1990 budget designed to barely skim in under the Gramm-Rudman $100 billion deficit limit; March 10, 1994 — a vote against a responsible amendment offered by Representative Gerald Solomon (R-NY) to balance the budget by 1999 through $698 billion in spending cuts (a mere 3.5 percent cut) over five years.

Considering these and other votes against sound fiscal policy, it is not surprising that Gingrich’s spendthrift ways have carried over into his personal finances. The 1992 House banking scandal revealed that he had run 22 overdrafts on his checking account, and this in spite of having voted himself a huge pay raise and having a taxpayer-provided, chauffeur-driven car. Nor is it surprising that his rating from the National Taxpayers Union during the latest session of Congress (the 103rd) was a meager 75 percent. His tax-and-spend record over the years on votes tabulated by Tax Reform IMmediately (TRIM) has so often contradicted his rhetoric that National Director of TRIM James Tort was prompted to remark: “Professor Gingrich hopefully will never be called upon to teach a course in the proper role of our federal government. His rare votes against bloated big government usually have been prompted by the partisan wrangling of the moment, not by any great respect for, or understanding of, the Constitution.”

Foreign Aid. If there is anything more unpopular, unconstitutional, counterproductive, fiscally irresponsible, and immoral than welfare for domestic freeloaders, it is welfare for foreign freeloaders. But the “tight-fisted” Mr. Gingrich consistently votes to send U.S. tax dollars to kleptocrats and tyrants abroad: June 27, 1990 — $15.7 billion in foreign aid for fiscal 1991; June 20 1991 — $12.4 billion for fiscal 1992 and $13 billion for fiscal 1993; June 25, 1992 — $13.8 billion for fiscal 1993; August 6, 1992 — $12.3 billion for the International Monetary Fund and $1.2 billion for the “republics” of the former Soviet Union; June 17, 1993 — $13 billion for fiscal 1994; September 29, 1993 — $12.9 billion, including $2.5 billion to Russia; August 4, 1994 — $13.8 billion for foreign aid for fiscal 1995.

Eco-Lunacy. Gingrich, a longtime member of the Georgia Conservancy (“an aggressive environmental group comprised largely of upper-middle class urbanites” — Newt’s own words) cofounded by Jimmy Carter, organized one of the early environmental studies programs back in 1970 while a professor at West Georgia State College. According to Current Biography, the success of his early congressional campaigns was due in large part “to the support of environmentalists.
” Besides being blatantly unconstitutional, virtually all federal environmental legislation involves gross violations of states’ rights and the property rights of private individuals, both of which Gingrich claims to champion. Newt’s “green” votes include: May 16, 1979 — the -Alaska Lands Bill, locking up 68 million acres as untouchable “wilderness”; December 17, 1987 — $307 million for continuation of the fraudulent and unconstitutional Endangered Species Act, putting the “rights” of owls, bugs, rats, snakes, and newts above those of people; March 28, 1990 — elevating the unconstitutional Environmental Protection Agency to Cabinet-level status; May 23, 1990 — the badly misnamed Clean Air bill, requiring radical cuts in industry and automobile emissions, adding tens of billions of dollars annually in new costs to our already stringent and costly air standards.

Federalizing Education. The Communist Manifesto calls for nationalizing education, while the U.S. Constitution, to the contrary, prohibits federal involvement in educational matters. These votes cause one to wonder which document’s philosophy is guiding Newt Gingrich’s education policy decisions: May 10, 1979 — for creation of the new Cabinet-level Department of Education demanded by President Carter and the radical National Education Association; May 9, 1989 — $1.4 billion in federal aid for “applied technology education,” the new federalese for vocational education; May 16, 1990 — $2.9 billion for Head Start and Follow Through programs for fiscal 1991, rising to $7.7 billion in 1994; July 20, 1990 — $1.1 billion for a variety of education programs, none of which the federal government has authority to fund; May 12, 1994 — “such sums as may be necessary” for the $3.3 billion-per-year Head Start program and $2.6 billion for fiscal 1995 for three low-income and child abuse prevention

http://web.archive.org/web/20070101203017/http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1994/vo10no25.htm

And this was written in 1994. Maybe someone from the “establishment” time traveled.

joana on January 27, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Sarah Palin is terrific. She is on the right side of history. Mitt Romney no doubt was behind much of the lies about her.

CoolChange80 on January 27, 2012 at 6:50 PM

…and all the Mormons left the building on 9/11, Mitt faked the moon landing and stranded the castaways on Gilligans’ Island as well.

V7_Sport on January 27, 2012 at 7:13 PM

aww, how chivalrous :-)…the only thing left now is to sell Newt as King Arthur of the Tea Party :-)…you can drop ‘King’ if it doesn’t rhyme with the TP ideology :-)…

jimver on January 27, 2012 at 6:58 PM

So, that makes Mitt the squish-Mordred?

TitularHead on January 27, 2012 at 7:13 PM

angry attack muffin

She Must be referring to that sausage egg mcmuffin, NEVER AGAIN

LazyHips on January 27, 2012 at 7:14 PM

There sure are a lot of willfully ignorant people here attacking Romney. For those who like to equate RomneyCare to ObamaCare, have you ever heard of the 10th amendment – you know that little part of the Constitution that says that states are allowed to do all kinds of things that the Federal government is not allowed to do? If that doesn’t completely resolve the argument for you, then you are being obtuse.

I don’t like MassCare, and I sure wouldn’t want it implemented in my state, but the people of Massachusetts wanted it (actually, they wanted a much more socialized, single-payer plan), and that’s what they got. Those who continue to argue that MassCare and Obamacare are one and the same are ignorant, whether intentionally or inadvertently.

And for those of you with the gall to say that Newt isn’t part of the establishment, I refuse to believe that you are sincere, or at least sincerely thinking. He’s certainly more “establishment” than Romney. Let’s see: Former Speaker of the House turned (unregistered) DC lobbyist. Yeah, I can see why the evil GOP establishment would want to keep a guy like that down. Sheesh.

And what irks me the most is that every once in a while, the real driving force behind many of the attacks on Romney pokes through, like that jack@ss who made the comment about magic underwear. Religious bigotry has no place in political discourse. Take your hate and go peddle it somewhere else.

Longing4Lincoln on January 27, 2012 at 7:14 PM

bluegill on January 27, 2012 at 7:11 PM

What took you so long?

HerneTheHunter on January 27, 2012 at 7:15 PM

Sarah is different than she used to be, strident and loud. This new gal is not very appealing.As for attacks by or about either candidate, it’s how the game is played. Seem to recall Newt fans chalking it up to game usual when Romany was the target.

jeanie on January 27, 2012 at 7:10 PM

Very true.

I lost a great deal of respect for Sarah Palin when she endorsed the corrupt, lying DC insider Newt Gingrich, who is the opposite of what the Tea Party represents.

bluegill on January 27, 2012 at 7:15 PM

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.

This is utter, incoherent nonsense spin attempting to cover anti-Gingrich bias now that someone has filled in the gaps of your education about Gingrich and the role he has played in advancing the Conservative agenda.

You’re not old enough to have known Gingrich’s deeds but you didn’t try to educate about them. You didn’t try to present a balanced view of the man. Instead, you have been tearing him down. You assume people have seen Romney and made no effort to dig into Romney before you came on the scene.

The utter and incomparable ignorance of your generation that ignores what happened before you all became aware that anything was happening. And you have the nerve to be a commentator, having confessed to this level of ignorance?!

SilentWatcher on January 27, 2012 at 7:15 PM

Longing4Lincoln on January 27, 2012 at 7:14 PM

You guys really do get paid and get your talking points straight from the Romney campaign don’t you? Here am I thinking it was all just a rumour. Anyway keep plucking that chicken.

HerneTheHunter on January 27, 2012 at 7:18 PM

o, that makes Mitt the squish-Mordred?

TitularHead on January 27, 2012 at 7:13 PM

hahaha :-) hardly, can’t quite see Mitt in the posture of Newt’s illegitimate son :-), the thought itself is a little disturbing :-), if not for other reasons but I am pretty sure Mitt is younger than Newt :-) …

jimver on January 27, 2012 at 7:19 PM

So, that makes Mitt the squish-Mordred?

TitularHead on January 27, 2012 at 7:13 PM

And that means Sarah is Merlin.

tinkerthinker on January 27, 2012 at 7:19 PM

HerneTheHunter on January 27, 2012 at 7:18 PM

You really don’t have any response other than ad hominems, do you? Care to address any of my points, or do you just prefer to attack me?

Longing4Lincoln on January 27, 2012 at 7:20 PM

bluegill on January 27, 2012 at 7:15 PM

Yes Sarah Palin is crying into her moose mocha choca thinking how she just lost the respect of someone the moniker of a fish bait. I guess she’ll just have to console herself with her bear rug.

HerneTheHunter on January 27, 2012 at 7:20 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

Do you still support her after her and her husband started shilling for the only politician in the race with a long proven and admitted history of infidelities, lying, corruption, and erratic behavior? She was the candidate that traded on her roguish awesomeness because she stood up to corruption in her own party. Does that not matter any longer?

csdeven on January 27, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Longing4Lincoln on January 27, 2012 at 7:20 PM

I thought my not responding to your point was obvious. but just to humor you I’ll give just a little hint: When the the plan is being subsidized by the Federal Government it’s not really a 10th amendment issue.

HerneTheHunter on January 27, 2012 at 7:24 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

I’m not expecting you to reveal personal details either. The Obama stooges are monitoring this place, no doubt, and there’s no need to draw that much attention to yourself. :-) FTR, I’m totally there with you that the government needs to be made smaller and our finances are a mess.

Looking at this as objectively as I can it looks to me like what you’re defining as the establishment is a small group of people who have or want to have legislative power. They do care who wins and loses in November. So why the big fuss about their feelings on the primary? A few DC insiders, even if they all move to New Hampshire, aren’t going to make that big a dent compared to the size of the overall Republican electorate. Based of what you’ve described I don’t see how they would be able to pick our candidate all on their own.

If a few powerbrokers have electability as their first, last and only issue and that’s led them to support Romney this time that’s fine and it shouldn’t influence how anyone else feels about any candidate, Mitt included. Unless of course the goal is to disagree with some unidentified DC powerbrokers just for the sake of not agreeing with them, but that would just be silly.

alchemist19 on January 27, 2012 at 7:24 PM

For those who like to equate RomneyCare to ObamaCare, …

Longing4Lincoln on January 27, 2012 at 7:14 PM

From the Boss Emeritus:

Confirmed: Romneycare = Obamacare

DannoJyd on January 27, 2012 at 7:25 PM

HerneTheHunter on January 27, 2012 at 7:18 PM

You really don’t have any response other than ad hominems, do you? Care to address any of my points, or do you just prefer to attack me?

Longing4Lincoln on January 27, 2012 at 7:20 PM

Nah, he’s just shakin his chain in a hideous and dreadful manner.

LazyHips on January 27, 2012 at 7:26 PM

And that means Sarah is Merlin.

tinkerthinker on January 27, 2012 at 7:19 PM

No, Todd is Merlin. Please try and keep up.

TitularHead on January 27, 2012 at 7:26 PM

And that means Sarah is Merlin.

tinkerthinker on January 27, 2012 at 7:19 PM

More like Lady of the Lake :-)…

jimver on January 27, 2012 at 7:28 PM

wow 800+ comments for someone that the mittwits tell us doesn’t matter.

I question the mittwits should ask themselves: Being that Gov Palin is the biggest name in GOp politics and she commands a large following that could destroy a candidate’s chances of winning. Do they really want to continue to poke the bear? Do they fell lucky? Well do you punks?

unseen on January 27, 2012 at 7:28 PM

Sarah Palin is a joke. No wonder conservatives are keeping her at arm’s length. With every day, she shows herself to be nothing more than a self-serving opportunist. Sarah Palin is no principled conservative. She is just someone who likes attention.

Sarah Palin whines about the vetting that the corrupt Newt Gingrich (who is the LEAST conservative candidate running) is receiving, yet she totally ignores the left wing-style attack against capitalism that Newt and Rick Perry engaged in when they tried to hurt Romney.

Sorry, this former Sarah Palin fan isn’t buying what Palin is selling this time.

bluegill on January 27, 2012 at 7:28 PM

More on RonmeyScare:

Romney’s baggage. It is so heavy:

The Bay State’s controversial 2006 universal health-care plan — also known as “Romneycare” — has cost Massachusetts more than 18,000 jobs, according to an exclusive blockbuster study that could provide ammo to GOP rivals of former Gov. Mitt Romney as he touts his job-creating chops on the campaign trail.

“Mandating health insurance coverage and expanding the demand for health services without increasing supply drove up costs. Economics 101 tells us that,” said Paul Bachman, research director at Suffolk University’s Beacon Hill Institute, the conservative think tank that conducted the study. The Herald obtained an exclusive copy of the findings.

“The ‘shared sacrifice’ needed to provide universal health care includes a net loss of jobs, which is attributable to the higher costs that the measure imposed,” said David Tuerck, the institute’s executive director.

…Despite Romney’s vaunted business acumen as a successful venture capitalist, Bachman said the former governor “was a little naive about what would become of the law.”

The Beacon Hill Institute study found that, on average, Romneycare:

•    cost the Bay State 18,313 jobs;

•    drove up total health insurance costs in Massachusetts by $4.311 billion;

•    slowed the growth of disposable income per person by $376; and

•    reduced investment in Massachusetts by $25.06 million.

DannoJyd on January 27, 2012 at 7:29 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

If that were true then they would have gone totally in the tank for Herman Cain.

alchemist19 on January 27, 2012 at 7:31 PM

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?

Ms Palin. You and John McCain were handed the 2008 election when the Fannie/Freddie sub prime mortgage crisis brought the banking system to its knees. Neither of you understood the issue. You allowed Obama to deflect responsibility away from the Carter/Clinton CRA and blame the crisis on Bush and Wall Street.

The fact that you now support Freddie Mac Gingrich, an enthusiastic supporter of the disastrous sub prime socialist mortgage scheme, shows that you still don’t get it. Whatever good Gingrich did in the 1990s before he left office in disgrace pales in comparison to the harm he caused in the 21st century. We need a problem solver in the White House. We don’t need Gingrich’s Big Idea lunacy.

Basilsbest on January 27, 2012 at 7:31 PM

csdeven on January 27, 2012 at 7:23 PM

First Sarah Palin has not come out to throw her support or endorse Newt. She has only endorsed and/or supported the continued primary process, continued debates and vetting.

Second Todd Palin is a registered Independent and is free to support whomever. Him and Sarah are not exclusively tied to the hips you know.

Third if at the end she does come out to fully unequivocally endorse Newt. Then it’ll be because he is the best conservative left standing. Now seeing as I know that you’re Mitt Romney supporter, you can’t possibly think…..oh nevermind I think you know that will NEVER happen.

HerneTheHunter on January 27, 2012 at 7:32 PM

HerneTheHunter on January 27, 2012 at 7:24 PM

Alright Herne, please break down for me how exactly MassCare is subsidized by the Federal Government and how that makes it “not really a 10th amendment issue.” Then (and I know I’m going against the stream by asking you to back up your contentions), please tell me when those subsidies kicked in and whether it was part of Romney’s implementation that led to it.

Longing4Lincoln on January 27, 2012 at 7:32 PM

Sarah Palin is a joke. No wonder conservatives are keeping her at arm’s length. With every day, she shows herself to be nothing more than a self-serving opportunist. Sarah Palin is no principled conservative. She is just someone who likes attention.

I agree with Palin. Not only will I not vote for Romney in the general, but instead of voting for Gary Johnson, my first choice, I’ll vote for Obama. The Republican establishment are one corrupt bunch of bottom feeders.

Nexialist on January 27, 2012 at 7:33 PM

wow 800+ comments for someone that the mittwits tell us doesn’t matter.

I question the mittwits should ask themselves: Being that Gov Palin is the biggest name in GOp politics and she commands a large following that could destroy a candidate’s chances of winning. Do they really want to continue to poke the bear? Do they fell lucky? Well do you punks?

unseen on January 27, 2012 at 7:28 PM

If HotAir publishes Sarah Palin’s latest Facebook post, 800 comments will seem like nothing…LOL

idesign on January 27, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Basilsbest on January 27, 2012 at 7:31 PM

wow are you delusional if you think they could have deflected from the bush meltdown.

unseen on January 27, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Sarah Palin is terrific. She is on the right side of history. Mitt Romney no doubt was behind much of the lies about her. CoolChange80 on January 27, 2012 at 6:50 PM

No doubt you have evidence to support your allegation. Link to it.

Basilsbest on January 27, 2012 at 7:36 PM

DannoJyd on January 27, 2012 at 7:25 PM

Way to cite a headline of an article that doesn’t say at all what you’re pretending it says and doesn’t in any way address the 10th amendment, states rights issue. But keep ringing that bell.

Longing4Lincoln on January 27, 2012 at 7:36 PM

alchemist19 on January 27, 2012 at 7:24 PM

Two, quick, final points. Small is a relative term. Compared to us hoi polloi, they’re small, but I bet they could pack a decent size arena easily enough.

Again, lots are great folks. I just often find myself on the other side of that group-think over the last half century.

Our goals are different. I want smaller government. I believe their primary motivator is power. When we’re on the same side, it’s great. Other times, it’s kind of ugly. Enjoyed the chat.

TitularHead on January 27, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Longing4Lincoln on January 27, 2012 at 7:32 PM

And remember that RomneyCare relied on FedGovCare as a sturdy crutch: “He also noted the state’s health-care costs have been heavily subsidized by billions of dollars in federal aid through a Medicaid waiver program.”

DannoJyd on January 27, 2012 at 7:38 PM

wow are you delusional if you think they could have deflected from the bush meltdown. unseen on January 27, 2012 at 7:35 PM

You are delusional if you think she understood the issue. Then or now. How else do you explain her support for Freddie Mac?

Basilsbest on January 27, 2012 at 7:39 PM

I agree with Palin. Not only will I not vote for Romney in the general, but instead of voting for Gary Johnson, my first choice, I’ll vote for Obama. The Republican establishment are one corrupt bunch of bottom feeders.

Nexialist on January 27, 2012 at 7:33 PM

Good riddance to you, then. You show your true colors.

After Romney wins the presidency with the support of conservatives, independents and smart Democrats, don’t try to claim credit for having helped elect him.

Romney will be an excellent president!! The small handful of haters probably aren’t even worth responding to.

bluegill on January 27, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Nexialist on January 27, 2012 at 7:33 PM

They’re not all Republicans. It’s the permanent political class. Political, media, industry. You’re right to call out the establishment, but unless we take back control from them, it’s going to continue. Romney or Obama, it doesn’t make any difference to them, as long as they’re in control. This is simply about keeping someone like Newt or Sarah from restoring power back to the people.

mike_NC9 on January 27, 2012 at 7:41 PM

Does that not matter any longer?

csdeven on January 27, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Anyone that does not support the love of your life, Mitt, is cast int he same light.
It’s been like that for years…remember your hatred, your utter hatred for Fred Thompson?
Yes, you are an obsessed Mitt follower, to the point of being a little scary…I hope you don’t think he talks to you…or do you?

right2bright on January 27, 2012 at 7:41 PM

DannoJyd on January 27, 2012 at 7:38 PM

Is that medicaid waiver anything like the medicaid waiver that Ben Nelson in Nebraska exchanged for his soul vote on ObamaCare? Either way, please explain to me how that takes it outside the realm of states rights. For the record, every state has rules governing health insurance providers, and no one (I trust) would make the argument that their acceptance of medicare or medicaid funds would deprive them of their right to do so.

Longing4Lincoln on January 27, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Palin and Newt are fortune hunters. Newt is not a serious candidate. They both self-promote themselves for higher speaking fees and book deals.

Palin, I’m sure is running out of dough, and she needs more exposure, so she spouts crazy talk. Her celebrity has worn off, groups don’t want her speaking at their events anymore

Her time has come and gone. Go to work Sarah, earn your $$, like the rest of have to do.

Redford on January 27, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Longing4Lincoln on January 27, 2012 at 7:36 PM

Hat tip to the marvelous Tina Korbe:

The difference between skepticism and cynicism, a dear professor once told me, is that a skeptic demands to be shown while a cynic refuses to be shown.

DannoJyd on January 27, 2012 at 7:43 PM

Romney will be an excellent president!! The small handful of haters probably aren’t even worth responding to.

bluegill on January 27, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Excellent if you like ObamaCare…abortions…gun control…and his top advisors all being Wall Street contributors…other than that, oh, and the fact that he bragged about being an independent and not a Republican, besides those things he will be as good as any we have had the last three years…

right2bright on January 27, 2012 at 7:43 PM

How else do you explain her support for Freddie Mac?

Basilsbest on January 27, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Because his opponent is Mitt. Father of Obamacare. Out of the four left 3 are better than Mitt.

unseen on January 27, 2012 at 7:44 PM

The Republican establishment are one corrupt bunch of bottom feeders.

Nexialist on January 27, 2012 at 7:33 PM

and voting for Obama you vote for umm…’a corrupt bunch of bottom feeders’ , (I just named the Dem establishment :-)…so, yeah, great reasoning there :)…

jimver on January 27, 2012 at 7:44 PM

Basilsbest on January 27, 2012 at 7:31 PM

Basilsbest on January 27, 2012 at 7:39 PM

bluegill on January 27, 2012 at 7:28 PM

bluegill on January 27, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Wow! So much stupid so little time.

HerneTheHunter on January 27, 2012 at 7:44 PM

DannoJyd on January 27, 2012 at 7:43 PM

Danno, thanks for actually engaging me on this issue, but I still “demand to be shown” why the 10th amendment isn’t the defining issue in the MassCare-ObamaCare comparison. Your thoughts?

Longing4Lincoln on January 27, 2012 at 7:46 PM

This Facebook Post by Palin was a brutal beat down of Romney and his Obamist press allies.

Let’s be clear: the subtext of what is going on is that Palin gets why the media wants Romney nominated. She made quite clear in her post that Mittens is a John Lindsey/Nelson Rockefeller Republican, like his father, George.

The MSM knows this. They also know that these squishtards can be called “racist” and run away with their tales between their legs like the Bushes did. Palin gets this in her bones.

That’s one of the reasosns she threw down this marker. She also knows that the Establishment is trying to alienate the Base so that enough of them will be angry in the fall to stay home and make sure that Mittens loses.

She knows exactly what’s going on. Too many of you Mittbots think that the American Crossroads crowd wants Mittens to win.

Well, there’s a sucker born every minute. And you Mittbots just bought a ticket to P.T. Barnum’s Circus.

However, Newt has to be a man about this and beat Romney man to man. If he can’t, if he can’t beat a John Lindsey Republican like Romney without Palin’s help, in Florida, after the leg up she gave him in South Carolina and tonight, then nothing Palin can do can save him.

This is as close to an endorsement as Newt will get from Palin. And I suspect the Newt people are quite happy at how Palin describes Mittens. It’s deadly accurate, too.

I suspect that this is a warning to the Beltway Establishment and the Bushies not to keep pushing this toxic beatdown of Newt they’re trying.

Oh, wait, the Bushes don’t care. They WANT Romney to lose…

Jeb!2016 folks! It’s what’s for breakfast!

victor82 on January 27, 2012 at 7:46 PM

“Crucify”? A lot of things come to mind with Newt–”Christ-like” isn’t one of them. The word choice isn’t merely overly dramatic but it’s also inappropriate.

OptionsTrader on January 27, 2012 at 2:41 PM

If it’s a language criticism, then in fact crucifixion was the meanest and cruelest of executions, generally only applied to low-lifes. So it is in fact the perfect word to describe attacking someone as trashy and immoral.

There’s a reason Christians are told to take up their cross. It’s not because crucifixion is reserved for truly Christlike people. It’s because crucifixion was so horrible, and was usually reserved for the lowest people. In other words, it was not just painful, but utterly humiliating.

And doesn’t that perfectly describe the campaign against Newt Gingrich?

tom on January 27, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Her time has come and gone.

Redford on January 27, 2012 at 7:42 PM

I believe that she will again EARN the title of KING maker as she did in the HISTORIC 2010 election cycle.

As for their ability to EARN more money than you are capable of doing, why whine about that? It isn’t as if they did so in an un-American fashion, or broke any laws doing so. Indeed, both of these fine people have successful historys of returning money back to We The People.

DannoJyd on January 27, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Palin, I’m sure is running out of dough, and she needs more exposure, so she spouts crazy talk. Her celebrity has worn off, groups don’t want her speaking at their events anymore

Her time has come and gone. Go to work Sarah, earn your $$, like the rest of have to do.

Redford on January 27, 2012 at 7:42 PM

She has millions of supporters, you’re just some fool posting…LOL

Too bas, so sad…

idesign on January 27, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Palin, I’m sure is running out of dough…

Redford on January 27, 2012 at 7:42 PM

You know, every once in awhile a post comes up that is just remarkable in it’s stupidity…yours is the one this time.
So you think Palin is “running out of dough”, good grief, she is a multi-millionaire, many times over. Her book alone gave he enough money to live on the rest of her life…she makes tens of thousands of dollars at speaking engagements, and Fox pays her a bundle…my, my, I do not wonder any more how Obama got elected, just look a the mentality of the voting public.
Palin, running out of dough….amazing…

right2bright on January 27, 2012 at 7:47 PM

If HotAir publishes Sarah Palin’s latest Facebook post, 800 comments will seem like nothing…LOL

idesign on January 27, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Oh yeah. We’re going to defcon 1 when AP throws that up.

Kataklysmic on January 27, 2012 at 7:48 PM

[...]it doesn’t make any difference to them, as long as they’re in control. This is simply about keeping someone like Newt or Sarah from restoring power back to the people.

mike_NC9 on January 27, 2012 at 7:41 PM

Enough with the lame conspiracy theories, ok? On what planet is the corrupt career politician and Freddie Mac lobbyist Newt Gingrich considered any kind of outsider?

Some of you people have lost touch with reality. Newt Gingrich would be destroyed by Obama in the general election. Newt Gingrich’s most fervent cheerleaders and fans right now are the Democrats!

bluegill on January 27, 2012 at 7:48 PM

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

Then what was the OWS-style Bain attacks about? Was that not character assassination? Worse, the people in the documentary even denied they were talking about Bain and Romney. Newt’s attack propaganda even made Michael Moore proud.

And you were on the f’n ticket, Sarah! It was your job to vet Obama. Instead you and McCain sat on your thumbs and reacted to the limelight like deers in headlight.

haner on January 27, 2012 at 7:49 PM

Good riddance to you, then. You show your true colors.

After Romney wins the presidency with the support of conservatives, independents and smart Democrats, don’t try to claim credit for having helped elect him.

Romney will be an excellent president!! The small handful of haters probably aren’t even worth responding to.

bluegill on January 27, 2012 at 7:39 PM

You don’t understand nothing will change until the Romney’s of the world are purged from the ranks of potential candidates. The only reasonable conservative in the race is Paul, who would cut $1Trillion from his first year’s budget. If you’d prefer I quit putting my money and efforts into House races, where it has a chance to do some good, good riddance to you.

Nexialist on January 27, 2012 at 7:49 PM

Then or now. How else do you explain her support for Freddie Mac?

Basilsbest on January 27, 2012 at 7:39 PM

You mean like Mitt’s support?

right2bright on January 27, 2012 at 7:49 PM

so, yeah, great reasoning there :)…

jimver on January 27, 2012 at 7:44 PM

so your reasoning is let’s vote for our bottom feeders instead of theirs? Why exaclty so the money can go to their friends instead of obama’s?

either give me a reason to vote or don’t expect my vote. And Mitt doesn’t have a reason. The father of obamacare can’t even say he is very different than obama.

I dooubt I will vote for Obama I could never see myself voting for him but that doesn’t mean I will vote for Mitt. There are down ticket votes that will need to happen since Mitt’s coattails will be small.

Mitt will not get my vote. considering NC will be a battleground state with Mitt as the nominee. I guess that means when you all tell me it doesn’t matter you are wrong. The votes for Mitt in MA, Pa, NY those are the votes that do not matter. Mitt will never carry those states.

He needs NC, AL, SC, GA and I doubt he gets them.

unseen on January 27, 2012 at 7:51 PM

Palin, I’m sure is running out of dough…

Redford on January 27, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Palin is most concerned about promoting her personal brand and staying in the headlines. She is no principled conservative. She obviously isn’t serious about defeating Obama, since she just endorsed the corrupt, proven liar Newt Gingrich, who obviously would lose to Obama in a landslide.

bluegill on January 27, 2012 at 7:51 PM

csdeven on January 27, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Anyone that does not support the love of your life, Mitt, is cast int he same light.
It’s been like that for years…remember your hatred, your utter hatred for Fred Thompson?
Yes, you are an obsessed Mitt follower, to the point of being a little scary…I hope you don’t think he talks to you…or do you?

right2bright on January 27, 2012 at 7:41 PM

+1 for r2b. csd is a scary freak.

SparkPlug on January 27, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Romney will be an excellent president!! The small handful of haters probably aren’t even worth responding to.

bluegill on January 27, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Poor fool.

Romney will get beaten like a rented mule. The Obami will have about 6-800 million dollars in ads waiting for Mittens, plus whatever they can get from foreign sources.

What is Mitt going to do to counter? Drain his Cayman accounts?

The negative stuff about Mitt that they are going to throw at swing voters about Mittens is going to make him look like a combination of Daddy Warbucks and Hitler. And the Squishtards who run his campaign are the same doofi who ran John McCain and George W. Bush into the ground.

I’ll vote for Mitt if he’s the nominee, but the beatdown the squishies are going to get from the Alinskyites is going to be something to behold.

You people don’t fight (well, okay, you fight Conservatives). And because you don’t fight, you lose.

victor82 on January 27, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Sarah is different than she used to be, strident and loud. This new gal is not very appealing.As for attacks by or about either candidate, it’s how the game is played. Seem to recall Newt fans chalking it up to game usual when Romany was the target.

jeanie on January 27, 2012 at 7:10 PM

Very true.

I lost a great deal of respect for Sarah Palin when she endorsed the corrupt, lying DC insider Newt Gingrich, who is the opposite of what the Tea Party represents.

bluegill on January 27, 2012 at 7:15 PM

I lost respect for you when…………oh, wait! I never had
any respect for you.

Amjean on January 27, 2012 at 7:52 PM

right2bright on January 27, 2012 at 7:47 PM

I have been saying this for a awhile now. This is the reason why we have the candidates we have on the stage right now. Just as it’s the reason Obama got elected. The stupid is something else.

HerneTheHunter on January 27, 2012 at 7:53 PM

INC on January 27, 2012 at 2:38 PM

you need to stop spamming every thread with this; Abrams can speak for himself, but few thousand people wrote and said that gingrich is crap, not just one; give it up

runner on January 27, 2012 at 2:41 PM

I found it a useful article, and about what I expected. All this speech really proves is that Gingrich was capable of criticizing Reagan, even though he was a Reagan supporter. Naturally, the Romney campaign tries to cherry-pick the criticism of Reagan to take out some of the sting of Romney famously distancing himself from Reagan and saying that he was no conservative.

Gingrich has very real flaws, but probably 80% of the attacks against him are similarly dishonest politically-motivated garbage.

tom on January 27, 2012 at 7:53 PM

The only reasonable conservative in the race is Paul, who would cut $1Trillion from his first year’s budget. If you’d prefer I quit putting my money and efforts into House races, where it has a chance to do some good, good riddance to you.

Nexialist on January 27, 2012 at 7:49 PM

How does Paul do that, since he is not the one that controls the budget process…he can only propose a budget, it’s a “suggestion”, the congress than creates a budget.
A president can’t “cut” 1 trillion dollars if congress does not approve.

right2bright on January 27, 2012 at 7:53 PM

Oh yeah. We’re going to defcon 1 when AP throws that up.

Kataklysmic on January 27, 2012 at 7:48 PM

need to stock the bar…LOL

idesign on January 27, 2012 at 7:54 PM

bluegill on January 27, 2012 at 7:15 PM

I lost respect for you when…………oh, wait! I never had
any respect for you.

Amjean on January 27, 2012 at 7:52 PM

blueshill and bainer have Mitt for brains.

SparkPlug on January 27, 2012 at 7:54 PM

Longing4Lincoln on January 27, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Your posts continue to attempt to deflect the obvious comparisons AND FAILURES of both of these SOCIALIST programs while ignoring the fact that the “10th amendment” issue has yet to be fully addressed.

Instead of arguing against a straw man I prefer to present facts, and no matter how anyone wishes to ignore it the Romneycare-0bamacare laws are joined at the hip.

IMHO, a vote for Romney is a vote for more 0bamanations.

DannoJyd on January 27, 2012 at 7:54 PM

and voting for Obama you vote for umm…’a corrupt bunch of bottom feeders’ , (I just named the Dem establishment :-)…so, yeah, great reasoning there :)…

jimver on January 27, 2012 at 7:44 PM

Only if lifelong conservatives like me start refusing to vote for big government Republicans like Romney will anything change. The establishment Republicans know they own you in the general election.

Nexialist on January 27, 2012 at 7:54 PM

Are you kidding with this crap??? Her endorsement is the kiss of death?? Tell that to Nikki Halley, Susanna Martinez and all the others that beg for it. And who are you supporting in this primary, GENIUS?? And attacks about her kids?? REALLY?? How 2008 of you!

Dan Pet on January 27, 2012 at 2:36 PM

That was all President Romney’s doing.

Jailbreak on January 27, 2012 at 2:42 PM

President Romney does not exist, and probably never will.

But as far as I know, there is no evidence that Romney is behind attacks on Sarah Palin’s kids.

tom on January 27, 2012 at 7:55 PM

haner on January 27, 2012 at 7:49 PM

Someone else respond to this please. I fear I may be charged with child endangerment.

HerneTheHunter on January 27, 2012 at 7:56 PM

How does Paul do that, since he is not the one that controls the budget process…he can only propose a budget, it’s a “suggestion”, the congress than creates a budget.
A president can’t “cut” 1 trillion dollars if congress does not approve.

right2bright on January 27, 2012 at 7:53 PM

He’s running on it for crying out loud. He may not get the entire amount, but government would shrink, not continue to grow like every other candidate.

Nexialist on January 27, 2012 at 7:57 PM

No, seriously, have you noticed that the Mittbot faux conservatives have come round to trash anyone who tells the truth about the King of Bain?

Yes, Mittbots, you must deal with the awful truth: not only will Obama beat your emotional cripple of a candidate, if only because the Nation’s dog lovers will want to take revenge for the Dog On The Roof, but Mitt would probably lose to Reinhard Heydrich in an election for Mayor of Haifa.

Still, as Mittens watches his future crash next election night, he can regale us with “Who Let the Dog’s Out?” like nobody’s business.

victor82 on January 27, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Gingrich bashed Reagan left and right, and now lying Newt is trying to pretend like he and Reagan were besties?

Newt Gingrich is a disgrace.

Reagan himself apparently didn’t even think much of the pompous, erratic Newt Gingrich. Reagan even had the guts to come out and say that Newt’s bad ideas would have crippled our defense program. Good for Reagan!

bluegill on January 27, 2012 at 7:59 PM

President Romney does not exist, and probably never will.

But as far as I know, there is no evidence that Romney is behind attacks on Sarah Palin’s kids.

tom on January 27, 2012 at 7:55 PM

Dude, humor the Mittbots. Sarah just gave their entire team a beatdown.

Tell them about unicorns and fluffy rabbits.

victor82 on January 27, 2012 at 8:00 PM

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.

-Palin

unseen on January 27, 2012 at 8:00 PM

Crucified? Really? I don’t think so. Crucifiction is really brutal!

MCGIRV on January 27, 2012 at 8:01 PM

BTW, does anyone think these Mittbot loyalists are placeholders for when Jailbreak gets back from her smoking break?

victor82 on January 27, 2012 at 8:01 PM

DannoJyd on January 27, 2012 at 7:54 PM

Sorry Danno. The 10th amendment is THE issue. It’s not a side issue, or a curiosity. It’s part of the constitution, and it says precisely that states (like Massachusetts) are ALLOWED to pass laws like MassCare, while the Federal government is not. How is it that so many people can willfully ignore this?

MassCare and ObamaCare could be point-for-point and line-by-line identical and it wouldn’t change the fact that one is permissible and the other is not.

Since you’re so down on MassCare, please tell me precisely what you would have done differently in Romney’s shoes? Would you have stonewalled the legislature (remember, they wanted a government-run, single-payer plan), and then vetoed it, only to have them override the veto? Or would you have done what Romney did and try to do the best possible job you could for the state you governed? Which approach do you think would have done the most good for the State of Massachusetts?

Too many people see headlines like the one you cited from the venerable Michelle Malkin and think, “I can’t support Romney, he probably secretly likes ObamaCare.” The difference is in the 10th amendment, and it’s an issue-defining difference.

Longing4Lincoln on January 27, 2012 at 8:01 PM

My God, Unseen, it’s been an age!

Where have YOU been!

BTW, terrific beatdown by Palin today.

victor82 on January 27, 2012 at 8:02 PM

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 Revo*ution 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.

unseen on January 27, 2012 at 8:02 PM

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.

-Palin

unseen on January 27, 2012 at 8:00 PM

Hey I agree with that. Nice Post. Especially this line

“I’ve seen it before – heck, I lived it before – but not in a GOP primary race.”

SparkPlug on January 27, 2012 at 8:02 PM

BTW, terrific beatdown by Palin today.

victor82 on January 27, 2012 at 8:02 PM

nobody and I mean nobody can do it better. I wish she would have run. Mitt would be toast right now.

unseen on January 27, 2012 at 8:03 PM

It is uplifting to hear from Sarah about all of this.

GaltBlvnAtty on January 27, 2012 at 8:04 PM

Comment pages: 1 7 8 9 10