Palin: Yes, I’d vote for Newt in Nevada to keep the race going

posted at 9:37 pm on January 31, 2012 by Allahpundit

She’s made this point about keeping the primaries going at least three times before, I believe. Has any Fox News reporter thought to ask her point-blank yet whether in theory that would mean encouraging people to vote for Romney if suddenly there were a big momentum shift and Newt started winning states? Somehow it’s hard for me to imagine that, but she should at least have a chance to answer. Also, what’s the endgame here? The idea is that the race should roll on because “competition breeds success.” Fair enough; in that case, presumably undecideds in any given state should vote for whichever candidate is behind at any given moment in order to extend the primary as long as possible. Is that correct, or are we looking at a shorter timeline? I’m skeptical that there are many Republicans who want this race to go all the way to the convention while Obama builds up his arsenal, but presumably most voters are happy to let it go on a while longer. How long is optimal? Super Tuesday? A bit longer than that? I’m asking earnestly. Click the image to watch.


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 5 6 7

Garym on February 1, 2012 at 10:02 AM

That isn’t quite what I saw or heard.

She spun and spun and refused to answer because she did not have a clear concise factual response. The spin zone is not for her.

Newt No Conservative Just A Bloviating Bag of Bull

uhangtight on February 1, 2012 at 10:39 AM

mozalf on February 1, 2012 at 8:43 AM

Absolutely right. Someone that makes sense.

CoolChange80 on February 1, 2012 at 10:41 AM

lhuffman34 on February 1, 2012 at 7:46 AM
csdeven on February 1, 2012 at 8:16 AM

Embedded Obamadrones. No republican outside of a Murkowski has that kind of hate for Palin. csdeven, especially.

CoolChange80 on February 1, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Rage against the Machine!

idesign on February 1, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Gingrich has taking a page from Palin playbook. That perpetual victim schtick is her MO.
So along with St Palin the Victimized, we now have Bishop Gingrich the Persecuted.
csdeven on February 1, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Quit your bellyaching you xdressing mess

just can’t wait till sex changes are part of national unhealthcare can you?

The TEA party supporters detest white Obama and will always

Stoopid

Sonosam on February 1, 2012 at 10:48 AM

CoolChange80 on February 1, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Really? I used to respect her, until the last year or so, then it became quite clear: she is not all that conservative, when she backed Carly Fiorina and not Chuck DeVore in California. Carly the Lisa Murkowski of California.

Please, the cult of personality does not wear well and you’ll find yourself exposed.

uhangtight on February 1, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Rage against the Machine!

idesign on February 1, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Which machine, the one that has been inside the Beltway for 30 Years? Newt who couldn’t go back home to GA, but stayed in the Beltway to lobby? That Machine?

Newt No Conservative Just a Bloviating Bag of Bull.

uhangtight on February 1, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Methinks Ms. Palin has grown out of her britches a bit on this one.

The key to maintaining influential longevity is clearly articulating your objectives and taking action which in parallel shows your intent is true. It’s about deciding on a course and staying with it based on a measurement of principle and related decisions.

Playing a shell game by cloaking your intent in figurative language in order to keep open options appears indecisive and disingenuous.

If Ms. Palin believes this is a wise action which allows her to somehow gain influence at a later juncture when a different outcome arises- she is sadly mistaken. She will then and is now losing influence for many of the same reasons Newt is. A failure to address legitimate reasons for peoples doubts about his candidacy.

Speaking well is important. But not as important as what you are saying.

Sorry, she has just moved down a few rungs in my mind.

Marcus Traianus on February 1, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Marcus Traianus on February 1, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Well said!

Truth. Being a Maverick does not mean you are erratic and inconsistent nor would a Maverick cloak their intent in figurative language, but be forth right and committed to their principles.

uhangtight on February 1, 2012 at 10:58 AM

uhangtight on February 1, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Yea,vote for guy that’s been running for the last seven years, who governed like a liberal for one term because he couldn’t get re-elected. The guy that talks out of both sides of his mouth just like John Kerry. The guy with the silver spoon in his mouth. yea he’s going to relate to the average joe. Vote for the guy who spent over one hundred thousand dollars to destroy hard drives and thousands of emails. Vote for the guy who designed the blue print for ObamaCare. Vote for the man who has no core.

Please……

idesign on February 1, 2012 at 11:05 AM

She spun and spun and refused to answer because she did not have a clear concise factual response. The spin zone is not for her.

Newt No Conservative Just A Bloviating Bag of Bull

uhangtight on February 1, 2012 at 10:39 AM

I don’t give a crap about your hatred of other conservatives.

Give me a reason to vote for Willard. Thats all I ask.

Garym on February 1, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Losing her sex appeal with every endorsement of Chameleon. Oops! I meant Newt.

NoPain on February 1, 2012 at 11:06 AM

I’m sure glad that Palin endorsed Newt in Florida… just think how bad Mitt would have lost if she had backed him.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on February 1, 2012 at 11:07 AM

What a disingenuous self-serving weenie Palin has become. Endorse or don’t endorse… just stop trying to extend your relevance in the marketplace of ideas by mealy mouthed fence straddling that anyone can see is false.

camaraderie on February 1, 2012 at 11:12 AM

“I think it pathetic that someone who running to be President of US has nothing positive to say about himself.”

Newt on Mitt.

So mittnesses please tell me the positives about Mitt Romney.

HerneTheHunter on February 1, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Vote For Mitt because he’s…………………………..?

Garym on February 1, 2012 at 11:25 AM

Vote For Mitt because he’s…………………………..?

Garym on February 1, 2012 at 11:25 AM

next in line

TitularHead on February 1, 2012 at 11:28 AM

next in line

TitularHead on February 1, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Damn, I always forget about that one. ; )

Garym on February 1, 2012 at 11:31 AM

You know that it is laughable for those of you that keep mentioning how long Romney has been running for president as the years continue to get longer and longer. You do realize that Reagan ran in ’68 and ’76 and lost both times and finally won in 1980 and again in 1984. So we could say Reagan was lobbying for the presidency longer than Romney has been.

A study of history shows Reagan and Romney on very similar paths and also come from similar ideologies in the way they both have governed prior to the presidency.

As far as Palin, agreed that she is hurting her image the more she backs Newt because you have to admit if you are a Tea Party supporter that Newt is NOT what a typical TPer pictured in 2009, 2010, etc when we thought TP candidate. Study Newt’s positions and you should come to this conclusion easily…the guy has been an INSIDER of DC for almost 40 years and yet HE is the TP representative? (scratch head)

g2825m on February 1, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Vote For Mitt because he’s…………………………..?

Garym on February 1, 2012 at 11:25 AM

Because he will starve to dead Holocaust survivors and the near majority of the GOP primary voters are actually neo-nazi voters. At least I think that’s Newt’s theory.

Chill out already. I don’t like Romney, but the thesis that he isn’t much better than Obama is beyond ridiculous. Heck, between him, Obama and Newt, only one has been a consistent defender of capitalism and free-markets.

joana on February 1, 2012 at 11:54 AM

Todd is more of a leader than Sarah. He can at least do a complete endorsement. The half term, half endorsement gig is lame.

hanzblinx on February 1, 2012 at 11:56 AM

I’m skeptical that there are many Republicans who want this race to go all the way to the convention while Obama builds up his arsenal, but presumably most voters are happy to let it go on a while longer.

Allahpundit,

It’s because as soon as we pick a candidate, Obama will hone in and start urban warfare STAT. I didn’t realize how dirty our own laundry was when it came to picking up our favorites-I wish we had that same passion to attack Obamaites.

I have learned my lesson; I will vote principles over party. I just texted my sis she wants to know what’s going on here, and that was my response: If Santorum somehow makes it all the way up to PA, I will vote for him. She texted back, “Good!”

I bet she wants me to call Lcdo. Luis Dávila Colón (as close to Rush as they have it there) so I can build that bridge again, and give him my 0.2. The only other reason I’d love for Mittens to lose was so Luis Fortuño retuned to PR with his tail between his legs, and face the rest of the island.

Just as sweet as an Obama loss.

ProudPalinFan on February 1, 2012 at 11:58 AM

I really did like Palin unlike a lot of these fakes who write “I used to like Palin but…”.

Palin was one of the last real Reganites.

I really don’t like the Mitten’s crowd who believes that there is an elite in congress who are superior to a random sample from a phonebook <- a book they used to have with everyone's phone #.
Reagan conservatives believe that "Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem.". We don't believe in "gavitas" and all these pretentious reserve words used by "panels of expertsshills”. The moderates love all that fake crap.

Palin stood consistently in manner,deed and word with the Reagan wing of conservatism. She was the keynote for his 100yr birthday event for a reason.

I don’t understand this Newt strategy and it does look like it hurts her.

BoxHead1 on February 1, 2012 at 12:01 PM

I think Fortuño is back today. Face the rest of the island for exactly what?

joana on February 1, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Todd is more of a leader than Sarah. He can at least do a complete endorsement. The half term, half endorsement gig is lame.

hanzblinx on February 1, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Why do Mittwit supporters sound just like Kos kids?

idesign on February 1, 2012 at 12:02 PM

I don’t understand this Newt strategy and it does look like it hurts her.

BoxHead1 on February 1, 2012 at 12:01 PM

It’s quite simple….

Palin wants the vetting to continue.

idesign on February 1, 2012 at 12:06 PM

darwin on February 1, 2012 at 10:22 AM

You. Did. Not. Read. The. Ethics. Report. Conclusion.

Or you did read it and are lying.

His history of corruption has zero to do with the tax issue. The report clearly explains that.

csdeven on February 1, 2012 at 12:06 PM

The only reason for me to vote for him at this time is the SCOTUS. In my book, that is a sorry reason.

Garym on February 1, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Are you considering the effect that a 5 vote progressive majority in the SCOTUS will have on our children, grand children, and the unborn for generations to come?

csdeven on February 1, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Garym on February 1, 2012 at 11:05 AM

No one can tell you who to vote for and it appears to me that any viable reasons you have already refused through emotions.

Newt: Lied about a balanced budget (this was all government accounting gimmickry), to have a balanced budget there would have been absolutely zero deficits. You check, deficits were there. The deficits did lower due to gutting the military. This should turn you away from Newt faster than a speeding bullet (if this is truly about conservatism and being taxed too much). You haven’t apparently. Newt in 2007 is on tape touting the individual mandate for health care, there are even tapes of Newt touting the MA health care law, even after Deval Patrick came in and fundamentally changed what Romney had signed into law.

The so called History Lessons – contracts prove he was a lobbyist for Fannie and Freddie. Where ever the money is flowing in from Newt’s position changed. 30 years in Washington DC (why didn’t he go back to his HOME state of Georgia?) and now lives in Virginia inside the beltway. Yet, he is the outsider?

Give me a break. If these do not change your emotions to a more conservative bent of emotions facts do not seem to work on you.

uhangtight on February 1, 2012 at 12:09 PM

I have learned my lesson; I will vote principles over party.

The only other reason I’d love for Mittens to lose was so Luis Fortuño retuned to PR with his tail between his legs, and face the rest of the island.

Just as sweet as an Obama loss.

ProudPalinFan on February 1, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Proud…I appreciate what you are saying here, however, when you do not vote for the R over the D then YOUR principles will NEVER have a chance of coming up to be voted on. Because D’s NEVER will see things the way R’s do even if it is only 50%, 75%, or whatever the number may be. At least when you vote R’s you know there is a foundation of where you both come from and the journey getting there may be different than Candidate A or B but at least you are headed in the right direction with SCOTUS appt’s, lower taxes, drilling in ANWR-offshore, America is NOT evil, CO2 is NOT a toxin, etc.

So do understand why the voting for principles or staying home while admirable ONLY hurts the overall R party and sets us back… i.e 1996 (Perot), 2006 (Democrat control), 2008 (Obama). :o)

Reagan says it best:
Reagan: “I’m not retreating an inch from where I was. But I also recognize this: There are some people who would have you so stand on principle that if you don’t get all that you’ve asked for from the legislature, why, you jump off the cliff with the flag flying. I have always figured that a half a loaf is better than none, and I know that in the democratic process you’re not going to always get everything you want. So, I think what they’ve misread is times in which I have compromised.”

g2825m on February 1, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Give me a reason to vote for Willard. Thats all I ask.

Garym on February 1, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Go find your own reason. That is if you have the courage to read, and read, and read, until you have personally collected the data yourself.

But I suspect you have no intention of being swayed….you are simply looking for a straw man argument.

csdeven on February 1, 2012 at 12:13 PM

It’s quite simple….

Palin wants the vetting to continue.

idesign on February 1, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Newt is a disaster not even waiting to happen. He can’t stick to a simple small gov script and he won’t touch RomneyCare since Romney’s early on debate smackdown of Newt.

BoxHead1 on February 1, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Vote For Mitt because he’s…………………………..?

Garym on February 1, 2012 at 11:25 AM

You have made up your mind and do not want facts, as you are still stumping in the comments for Newt. Newt is not a true conservative and never has been. Facts will not bring you to a realization that Newt is not a conservative, so Facts will not bring you to vote for anyone else doesn’t matter if it is Romney or Santorum.

uhangtight on February 1, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Because he will starve to dead Holocaust survivors and the near majority of the GOP primary voters are actually neo-nazi voters. At least I think that’s Newt’s theory.

Chill out already. I don’t like Romney, but the thesis that he isn’t much better than Obama is beyond ridiculous. Heck, between him, Obama and Newt, only one has been a consistent defender of capitalism and free-markets.

joana on February 1, 2012 at 11:54 AM

This is the standard answer I get from The Romney defenders.
Next……………?

P.S. I would pick Gingrich over Romney, but flail away at Gingrich, Santorum and whoever all you want. I don’t care. These are crappy candidates in an election year where Obama is beatable.

Garym on February 1, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Endorse or don’t endorse… just stop trying to extend your relevance in the marketplace of ideas by mealy mouthed fence straddling that anyone can see is false.

camaraderie on February 1, 2012 at 11:12 AM

She and Neutron Newt are going after the uneducated angry voter who don’t care if they are being duplicitous.

csdeven on February 1, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Mitt Romney can count to infinity – and back again.

csdeven on February 1, 2012 at 12:17 PM

The only other reason I’d love for Mittens to lose was so Luis Fortuño retuned to PR with his tail between his legs, and face the rest of the island.

ProudPalinFan on February 1, 2012 at 11:58 AM

I keep hearing from many of you Palinistas that you want Obama to win so that you will be able to laugh at this or that person, or so that you will feel some kind of personal satisfaction vindication. That’s awfully petty and nasty.

bluegill on February 1, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Newt is a disaster not even waiting to happen. He can’t stick to a simple small gov script and he won’t touch RomneyCare since Romney’s early on debate smackdown of Newt.

BoxHead1 on February 1, 2012 at 12:13 PM

So you would rather crown Romney king….

idesign on February 1, 2012 at 12:17 PM

design on February 1, 2012 at 11:05 AM

How many times did Reagan run for President? Are you a Reagan Conservative? He ran more times than Romney.

How did Reagan govern California? I remember because I am a Californian. Well, I’ll give you a hint, he governed like a moderate or as you say ‘liberal’.

Yet, you are for the Lobbyist and 30+ Years Beltway Insider: A.K.A. Newt.

Newt No Conservative Just a Bloviating Bag of Bull.

uhangtight on February 1, 2012 at 12:18 PM

It’s quite simple….

Palin wants the vetting to continue.

idesign on February 1, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Yet after Neutron Newt’s win in SC, she was still shilling for him. Romney was down by double digits and it appeared that Gingrich would lock it up with a win in Florida.

So spare us the BS.

csdeven on February 1, 2012 at 12:20 PM

You have made up your mind and do not want facts, as you are still stumping in the comments for Newt. Newt is not a true conservative and never has been. Facts will not bring you to a realization that Newt is not a conservative, so Facts will not bring you to vote for anyone else doesn’t matter if it is Romney or Santorum.

uhangtight on February 1, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Bring some facts then. All I hear from Romney supporters are a constant drone of ad hominin attacks.

Vote for Romney because ……………?

Garym on February 1, 2012 at 12:20 PM

It’s quite simple….

Palin wants the vetting to continue.

idesign on February 1, 2012 at 12:06 PM

This isn’t vetting anymore. It’s destructive, negative, inter-party fighting. I mean, what are we vetting? That Romney tried to starve Holocaust survivors by cutting the funding for their meals?

The GOP is taking a hit on the generic vote because the campaign got so nasty. This is hurting our chances of keeping the congress and gaining the Senate. See what happened in 1976 with Ford or 1968 with Humphrey.

Palin’s position is indefensible even for me. She should endorse someone. But this “I’ll endorse Gingrich or Romney depending on who’s behind to keep the race going” is nothing but making sure the Democrats clean the table in November. And I like Palin but I’m first of all a conservative and a republican – just like most of her fans. We won’t tolerate deliberate attempts to hurt the party in the name’s of one’s ego – from Palin or whoever else.

joana on February 1, 2012 at 12:23 PM

This is the standard answer I get from The Romney defenders.
Next……………?

P.S. I would pick Gingrich over Romney, but flail away at Gingrich, Santorum and whoever all you want. I don’t care. These are crappy candidates in an election year where Obama is beatable.

Garym on February 1, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Then why exactly you want them Romney supporters to behave differently than you? I don’t get it.

joana on February 1, 2012 at 12:25 PM

uhangtight on February 1, 2012 at 12:18 PM

I’m not nessecaraly a Newt supporter, but would like the vetting to continue. I have problems with Romney on a number of issues and want the debates to continue. look at the gaffe Romney made this morning. We have 46 states to go, this is just the beginning….

idesign on February 1, 2012 at 12:26 PM

Palin does not want the “vetting to continue” – she is working for Gingrich – period – she has sold out.

Pork-Chop on February 1, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Vote for Romney because ……………?

Garym on February 1, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Look it up yourself. Unless you’re too scared to do the research on your own.

csdeven on February 1, 2012 at 12:47 PM

First time on this thread. Just checking to see if “fighting like a girl” is here, LOL

bluefox on February 1, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Palin does not want the “vetting to continue” – she is working for Gingrich – period – she has sold out.

Pork-Chop on February 1, 2012 at 12:33 PM

BS….

idesign on February 1, 2012 at 12:50 PM

at least Palin doesn’t tell us to “EAT HEALTHY” and then carry around a semi behind her.

PappyD61 on February 1, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Why do Mittwit supporters sound just like Kos kids?

idesign on February 1, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Why do ABRtards sound just like Kos kids?

Gunlock Bill on February 1, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Palin wants the vetting to continue.

idesign on February 1, 2012 at 12:06 PM

He he he.

She wanted the vetting of ROMNEY to continue. But to her dismay, the vetting of the Newtron also continued.

He he he.

It didn’t quite work out the way she thought it would.

Gunlock Bill on February 1, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Here is what Florida showed the Republican Party:
“No state where Republicans have competed this year is more reflective of the nation’s geographical, political and ethnic diversity than Florida, and its complexity seemed to help Romney.” NY Times

Romney did well in ALL categories and as more States come quicker and combined it will be tougher for Gingrich’s campaign.

Also of note: Who is the first person running “negative” ads in Nevada? Santorum attacking Gingrich.

g2825m on February 1, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Look it up yourself. Unless you’re too scared to do the research on your own.

csdeven on February 1, 2012 at 12:47 PM

I’ve given you reasons why he is my last choice. At the top of the list is Romneycare. A top down solution to healthcare problems in his state. A solution that included a mandate to buy health insurance. Once again, the only reason to vote for Romney is SCOTUS.

Garym on February 1, 2012 at 1:37 PM

What did Mit say? (paraphrasing) A contested primary only makes us stronger.
You Mitt supporters need to stand behind your man’s statement.

Vince on February 1, 2012 at 1:40 PM

The only reason for me to vote for him at this time is the SCOTUS. In my book, that is a sorry reason.
Garym on February 1, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Are you considering the effect that a 5 vote progressive majority in the SCOTUS will have on our children, grand children, and the unborn for generations to come?
csdeven on February 1, 2012 at 12:09 PM

By itself, standing alone, the nominations for SCOTUS is plenty of reason to get ANY of our Republican primary candidates into the White House this round.

listens2glenn on February 1, 2012 at 2:01 PM

It’s quite simple….

Palin wants the vetting to continue.

idesign on February 1, 2012 at 12:06 PM

This isn’t vetting anymore. It’s destructive, negative, inter-party fighting. I mean, what are we vetting? That Romney tried to starve Holocaust survivors by cutting the funding for their meals?

The GOP is taking a hit on the generic vote because the campaign got so nasty. This is hurting our chances of keeping the congress and gaining the Senate. See what happened in 1976 with Ford or 1968 with Humphrey.

Palin’s position is indefensible even for me. She should endorse someone. But this “I’ll endorse Gingrich or Romney depending on who’s behind to keep the race going” is nothing but making sure the Democrats clean the table in November. And I like Palin but I’m first of all a conservative and a republican – just like most of her fans. We won’t tolerate deliberate attempts to hurt the party in the name’s of one’s ego – from Palin or whoever else.

joana on February 1, 2012 at 12:23 PM

YOOOOO HOOOOOOOO!!

Remember this?

I will ask where you get this empirical data as you note above. I’d love to read the article/link that it came from and who wrote it/them.

kim roy on February 1, 2012 at 1:37 AM

I think anyone with superficial knowledge of the American history of the last 50 years can reach that conclusion. There’s no need for an article.

joana on February 1, 2012 at 1:42 AM

I just asked my husband with a degree in history to comment. He just looked at me and said “What empirical data? I’d love to know what empirical data she’s talking about. Are there full studies with calculations? How do you measure how long it takes to bring a party together, how divided were they before, stats, etc?”.

So there you be. Your somewhat condescending “superficial knowledge” toss was taken to someone with a wee bit more than that and he was totally baffled as to where you came to that conclusion and would like cites/data/stats, etc, or even just an example.

If you could elaborate I’ll forward it to the historian in the family. Thanks.

kim roy on February 1, 2012 at 1:49 AM

I had to listen to a lecture after asking this question. Love to have something to answer for the effort.

Thanks.

kim roy on February 1, 2012 at 2:03 PM

We won’t tolerate deliberate attempts to hurt the party in the name’s of one’s ego – from Palin or whoever else.

joana on February 1, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Oh ya… and who’s “we” and how are you (and we) not going to “tolerate” this?

Thanks, Allah and Ed for the open registration. This place is becoming unreadable.

kim roy on February 1, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Thanks, Allah and Ed for the open registration. This place is becoming unreadable.

kim roy on February 1, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Hey now! not all of us NOOBS are this bad. ; )

Garym on February 1, 2012 at 2:25 PM

It didn’t quite work out the way she thought it would.

Gunlock Bill on February 1, 2012 at 1:06 PM

And the vetting of Palin continued. Her brand just lost whatever credibility rational folks were still giving her.

csdeven on February 1, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Allah- I think you’re being very disengenerous. Sarah has said on numerous occassions her goal is to defeat obama and will vote for whoever the nominee is ,to do so. I know she has come short of a full endorsement of Newt,but what if she did Is she not permitted to have a favorite? I don’t mind Newt staying in a little longer people are starting to take another look at Santorum (my guy)the process is working.You asked if Sarah would be doing the same tihng if Newt was ahead and Romney running second. She has answered that question already We need to vet. We don’t want any October surprises.and if you want to play what if. What if Newt took the the nomination instead of Romney . how many Romneyites would still vote for Newt in order to defeat obama. I think that’s a fair question I know Sarah will vote for Romney to defeat obama and yet some how Sarah’s the problem .She’ll give it all Romneyites not so much

pamiam on February 1, 2012 at 2:57 PM

So you would rather crown Romney king….

idesign on February 1, 2012 at 12:17 PM

No, I want a real debate in these remaining few months that has to do with what’s happened these last 3 years. THat debate won’t happen with Newt at the helm of the opposition.

BoxHead1 on February 1, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Funny how that’s exactly what the Left wants, to keep this going. Odd, isn’t it? More time for circular firing squads, less time to take the Senate. And the whole vote for Newt to annoy liberals nonsense further erodes Palin’s credibility.

ConservativeLA on February 1, 2012 at 3:19 PM

This isn’t vetting anymore. It’s destructive, negative, inter-party fighting. I mean, what are we vetting? That Romney tried to starve Holocaust survivors by cutting the funding for their meals?

Its teaching Mitt how to run. He’s certainly got better at debate, the way he defused Newt when he was winding up to smack another home run off a moderator was great, although Santorum spanked him about Romneycare. But I guess it would be better to let him get slapped by Obama in a debate over Romneycare so the press could have a field day hammering him on his lack of answers.

The longer this goes on the better Romney gets. Hopefully by the time hes in the general he’s have the answers to anything the dems will throw at him or at least deflect without looking like a stammering fool.

The GOP is taking a hit on the generic vote because the campaign got so nasty. This is hurting our chances of keeping the congress and gaining the Senate. See what happened in 1976 with Ford or 1968 with Humphrey.

Ford was because of infighting? Seems to me it had alot more to do with having been part of Nixons administration. You wouldnt be chance have some empirical data on that also whould you?

Palin’s position is indefensible even for me.

Yes, well as we all know your such a dyed-in-the-wool supporter of her that when even you cant defend her position it must be wrong.

She should endorse someone. But this “I’ll endorse Gingrich or Romney depending on who’s behind to keep the race going” is nothing but making sure the Democrats clean the table in November.

Yes, its her masterplan, or maybe your crystal ball is a little out of tune. Maybe she means what she said, have proof otherwise? Maybe the minutes from the cabal to give the race to the democrats meeting or something like?

And I like Palin but I’m first of all a conservative and a republican – just like most of her fans. We won’t tolerate deliberate attempts to hurt the party in the name’s of one’s ego – from Palin or whoever else.

joana on February 1, 2012 at 12:23 PM

This “we” a royal we? It funny that you claim to be a fan of hers and then claim she is making a deliberate attempt to hurt the party. Its kinda like someone claiming they are more consevitive than most on this site and then not acting like it.

Sultanofsham on February 1, 2012 at 3:23 PM

Thanks, Allah and Ed for the open registration. This place is becoming unreadable.

kim roy on February 1, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Hey now! not all of us NOOBS are this bad. ; )

Garym on February 1, 2012 at 2:25 PM

No, that’s true and that was a lazy generalization from me.

My apologies. :)

kim roy on February 1, 2012 at 3:39 PM

And I like Palin but I’m first of all a conservative and a republican – just like most of her fans. We won’t tolerate deliberate attempts to hurt the party in the name’s of one’s ego – from Palin or whoever else.

joana on February 1, 2012 at 12:23 PM

This “we” a royal we? It funny that you claim to be a fan of hers and then claim she is making a deliberate attempt to hurt the party. Its kinda like someone claiming they are more consevitive than most on this site and then not acting like it.

Sultanofsham on February 1, 2012 at 3:23 PM

Conservative like mitt, lol.

tinkerthinker on February 1, 2012 at 3:45 PM

I had to hurry up and post something, because the post-count for this thread was displaying 666 !

listens2glenn on February 1, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Methinks Ms. Palin has grown out of her britches a bit on this one.

The key to maintaining influential longevity is clearly articulating your objectives and taking action which in parallel shows your intent is true. It’s about deciding on a course and staying with it based on a measurement of principle and related decisions.

Playing a shell game by cloaking your intent in figurative language in order to keep open options appears indecisive and disingenuous.

If Ms. Palin believes this is a wise action which allows her to somehow gain influence at a later juncture when a different outcome arises- she is sadly mistaken. She will then and is now losing influence for many of the same reasons Newt is. A failure to address legitimate reasons for peoples doubts about his candidacy.

Speaking well is important. But not as important as what you are saying.

Sorry, she has just moved down a few rungs in my mind.

Marcus Traianus on February 1, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Yep, this passive-aggressive horse hooey doesn’t fool anyone. Endorse Newt or zip it, Palin. At least bloviator Christie has taken a stand, even if it’s in a sewage tank with Romney.

ebrown2 on February 1, 2012 at 4:20 PM

This “we” a royal we? It funny that you claim to be a fan of hers and then claim she is making a deliberate attempt to hurt the party. Its kinda like someone claiming they are more consevitive than most on this site and then not acting like it.

Sultanofsham on February 1, 2012 at 3:23 PM

It’s transparently obvious that she’s trying to pull her own iteration of “Operation Chaos” on the establishment. Tying her brand to Newt the Nitwit has really damaged it. The only Tea Party Gingrich wants to attend is the one where he’s the Mad Hatter.

ebrown2 on February 1, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Ah, Sarah, we never really knew you. After all that stuff about rebelling against the Washington establishment, you endorse a long time Washington insider. You had a lot of people ready to follow you, but then you declined to lead them and left the “real conservative” movement to be grabbed by a bunch of under-funded, disorganized shoestring campaigns. You might have made gained some influence with Mitt, but now you’re reduced to exhorting your supporters to use their votes to extend the primaries. Not too shrewd.

flataffect on February 1, 2012 at 4:42 PM

flataffect on February 1, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Yawn….

idesign on February 1, 2012 at 4:54 PM

It’s transparently obvious that she’s trying to pull her own iteration of “Operation Chaos” on the establishment.

Not sure what your saying here. Are you saying she is throwing the election to the democrats on purpose as Joana claimed? Or are you trying to equate the party to the establishment?

If its the first I’d ask for proof as I asked Joana for. If its the second I’d really love for you to show how the to are one in the same.

She said why she is doing it. You dont have to agree with it but if you want others to believe that there is some other reason you have to come up with a little more than “transparently obvious”. Paulbots like to make claims without backing it up also and they’er arguments are as about as efective.

Tying her brand to Newt the Nitwit has really damaged it.

And that has what to do with what other than sounding slightly unhinged?

The only Tea Party Gingrich wants to attend is the one where he’s the Mad Hatter.

ebrown2 on February 1, 2012 at 4:23 PM

And that has what to do with anything other than sounding totally off your rocker. Do you really think making personal attacks against someone who wasn’t even being talked about in my post is a way to prove anything? We get it, you hate Newt. Doesnt have anything to what the post was about and the way you said it undermines any credibility but more power to ya’.

Sultanofsham on February 1, 2012 at 5:31 PM

Thanks, Allah and Ed for the open registration. This place is becoming unreadable.

kim roy on February 1, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Poor, poor Kimmy. Looks like you are realizing that not all conservatives worship Sarah Palin like you do. In fact, I think most believe Sarah Palin is an utter embarrassment. Sorry, but you were bound to find out sooner or later.

I suggest you quit whining about the new commenters who have different views than you.

Sarah Palin is a joke and the candidate she endorsed (the corrupt, lying DC insider, Newt Gingrich) lost big time. Those are the facts. Deal with it.

bluegill on February 1, 2012 at 5:49 PM

I just asked my husband with a degree in history to comment. He just looked at me and said “What empirical data?

If you could elaborate I’ll forward it to the historian in the family. Thanks.

kim roy on February 1, 2012 at 1:49 AM

Having a history degree is meaningless. Why should Joana have to be your research assistant? Why don’t you learn how to use Google yourself? Try educating yourself with facts for once. I know that facts are not something you, as a Palinista, are too familiar with, but I think you can do it if you try real hard.

bluegill on February 1, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Has Hot Air become the Soros network .Looks like we will have our choice between 2 democrats this election Romney and O bommer

P Bonz on February 1, 2012 at 7:01 PM

Saul Alinsky Fifth Rule

P Bonz on February 1, 2012 at 7:06 PM

I just asked my husband with a degree in history to comment. He just looked at me and said “What empirical data?

If you could elaborate I’ll forward it to the historian in the family. Thanks.

kim roy on February 1, 2012 at 1:49 AM

Having a history degree is meaningless. Why should Joana have to be your research assistant? Why don’t you learn how to use Google yourself? Try educating yourself with facts for once. I know that facts are not something you, as a Palinista, are too familiar with, but I think you can do it if you try real hard.

bluegill on February 1, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Hahahahahahaha. She pulled her comments out of her butt and presented them as fact so I asked her to back them up. I was being polite. Now I’m not.

This has absolutely nothing to do with my google skills and she was the one who brought up knowing history. So I am fortunate to have one nearby and asked him.

She could have just presented it as an opinion and no harm no foul. But no. She had to try to seem like she knew more than she actually did.

Hence I asked the historian and asked for her cites. Since it was A Fact.

But thanks for playing.

PS: Because I think the woman is right (and she was happily vindicated today with Romney’s minimum wage pander – isn’t it nice this happened now rather than October?) does not mean I’m a Palinista. Just because I think that Cain’s sexual harassment issues were never proved doesn’t mean I’m a Cainiac.

I know this concept is really hard for you to process, so just take a few minutes to think it over.

kim roy on February 1, 2012 at 7:31 PM

bluegill on February 1, 2012 at 5:49 PM
The line between Obamadrone and Romneybot is a blurry one. You are an embarassment and definitely not a conservative.

CoolChange80 on February 1, 2012 at 8:09 PM

kim roy on February 1, 2012 at 7:31 PM

Face it, Joana showed you up by time. Joana’s posts were logical and coherent.

You are nothing but an apologist for the clown Herman Cain and the embarrassing Sarah Palin.

bluegill on February 1, 2012 at 8:20 PM

You know that it is laughable for those of you that keep mentioning how long Romney has been running for president as the years continue to get longer and longer. You do realize that Reagan ran in ’68 and ’76 and lost both times and finally won in 1980 and again in 1984. So we could say Reagan was lobbying for the presidency longer than Romney has been.

A study of history shows Reagan and Romney on very similar paths and also come from similar ideologies in the way they both have governed prior to the presidency.

g2825m on February 1, 2012 at 11:52 AM

You can compare him to Reagan all you want, but there’s no real similarity beyond both being in the Republican party and both being politicians. Reagan served two successful terms as governor of California, and actually was a conservative and effective governor. Romney only won a single election, and in his chance to govern Massachusetts, put in a socialized healthcare system that would have appalled Reagan.

Reagan did radio spots and speeches to promote conservative values and principles. Romney backpedaled from being associated with Reagan — or even with Bush 41! — and shows no real interest in conservative principles.

Reagan was genuine, and Romney is about as plastic as they come.

Now that Romney is running in the primaries, his minions are suddenly out trying to compare him to Reagan. I don’t buy it for a second.

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 2, 2012 at 2:51 AM

Palin stood consistently in manner,deed and word with the Reagan wing of conservatism. She was the keynote for his 100yr birthday event for a reason.

I don’t understand this Newt strategy and it does look like it hurts her.

BoxHead1 on February 1, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Yep, this passive-aggressive horse hooey doesn’t fool anyone. Endorse Newt or zip it, Palin. At least bloviator Christie has taken a stand, even if it’s in a sewage tank with Romney.

ebrown2 on February 1, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Isn’t it obvious Palin is trying to stay neutral. She’ll comment on various aspects of the races, but is trying not to actually endorse anyone.

And she’s right. The rush to coronate Romney is a bad thing.

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 2, 2012 at 2:56 AM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7