Last night wasn’t the first time Sarah Palin has beseeched Republicans to vote for Newt Gingrich. But it was the latest step in Palin’s strange Gingrich dance, in which she defends the former speaker, praises him, calls on voters to vote for him – but stops just short of officially endorsing him. The Globe and Mail reports:
There is a curious dance Sarah Palin is doing lately with Newt Gingrich, and it goes something like this: do not formally endorse Mr. Gingrich, but on the eve of key state primaries make an appearance on Fox News TV and deliver what sounds an awful lot like an endorsement.
The former Alaska governor and vice-presidential candidate did it ahead of the South Carolina primary, saying that if she were a South Carolinian she would ”vote for Newt.” Mr. Gingrich welcomed the lift and credited Ms. Palin’s comments with helping his South Carolina campaign. “She’s an enormous help. She’s a big help in the South Carolina victory,” he told Fox News.
Palin has repeatedly claimed she’s simply trying to “keep the race going.” But as Allahpundit notes, this excuse has its problems:
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.
So why no endorsement? There are plenty of possible explanations, but two initially come to mind. First, Palin could lose whatever remains of her reputation as a “kingmaker” if she throws her weight behind Gingrich and he loses. Second, she could be holding out hope for a brokered convention – plenty of conservatives still do – and maybe thinks she could end up getting tapped for the nomination. That one’s a lot less plausible. Not only would she have to be wildly delusional, if she had presidential aspirations, why wouldn’t she have just run in the primaries?
Here’s another thought. Would an official endorsement conflict with her current role as a Fox News commentator covering the primaries? I can’t think of any of them who have made endorsements yet. Karl Rove is pretty clearly rooting for Mitt Romney, but he also hasn’t backed him officially. Palin may be able to help Gingrich more as a “neutral” analyst of the race than as an official endorser who would likely have to disclose her support on the air.
She's just trying to stay in the spotlight by teasing Fox News viewers. Fox may be number one in cable news network ratings, but that doesn't make it better than the rest of them. I'm a conservative, but I feel insulted watching these networks. They're all icing, no cake.
I think it is wise for any thoughtful conservatives to stay on the sidelines at this point. Especially after The Huffington Post and others have seized on Romney's remarks about the poor this morning on CNN. That quote will be played a thousand times between now and November (should Romney be the nominee). I actually think that quote will make Romney radioactive and hopefully the scales will come off of the eyes of the republican establishment (such as yourself). If I had a lever for "none of the above" when the primary gets to my state, I would certainly pull it as Romney's comments make his uphill climb that much steeper and, Newt has the baggage he has. A "draft Daniel's" movement is about all that could salvage the party in this election in my mind. It simply amazes me that we could go from the high of the midterms to the valley we are in now in such a short time.
Actually, I think Romney's remarks about the poor (misrepresented,as usual) will help him, rather than hurt him. i think that secretly, most working people are fed up to the teeth with the jeremiads about 'the poor'. The poor, who get food stamps, their rents paid, subsidized tuition and much more. These subsidies are killing us and I think that, in their heart of hearts, working people of all stripes resent that. It will hurt Romney only with the leftist intelligentsia of the press that would never vote for him anyway.
I live under the poverty line. I have been stuck in the same low-paying job for 12 years. I don't take welfare or food stamps. I didn't take student loans. I certainly don't get my rent paid for or subsidized. I have a visceral dislike of Mr. Romney – he is the type of wealthy person who thinks he is entitled to say how things should be because he is wealthy, despite the fact that he has Bush-itis (foot in mouth disease accompanied by difficulty stringing two articulate and meaningful sentences together) and he has run a dirty, negative campaign while attempting to give the impression that none of it is his responsibility. If Bain Capital was an enterprise intended to make a profit for its investors, fine. But then "profit" is his claim to fame, not "creating jobs" – if jobs were created (and he has not demonstrated this to my satisfaction) it was totally incidental to the goal of making a profit, and he cannot take credit for it. His association with Goldman Sachs stinks, and you know as a result he will not press Obama about the Goldman influence that has existed all the way through the bailout process. If Romney is the nominee, I will not be voting for a President, and I know there are a lot of people who feel the same way.
"I can't hire illegals, I'm running for President!" n n"I like to fire people." n n"I'm not concerned about the very poor." n nOut of the abundance of the heart speaks the mouth. n nAnd yes, I know the context of the statements. It still stinks.
I too am unemployed and I am under threat of foreclosure and I have struggled for many years. So, I have as good a handle on poverty as you might have. And i absolutely resent ther fact that 46 million (46 million!) people receiver food stamps that I paid for, I absolutely resent that I don't have health insurance but cannot get on medicaid- which I paid for , and I absolutely resent all the goodies that the "poor' are asking for. The govenrment is not here to pamper you. If you want help go to your church but don't expect me to pay for you!
I resent too that you don't have any health insurance! If there was not so much fraud, waste, and abuse in the government–and people only took assistance when they needed it temporarily–there would be enough to provide reasonable healthcare insurance to those who don't have it available through an employer. I saw an article today that there is $1T dollars missing from Social Security that can't be accounted for. It isn't unusual for the Dept of Education to have $6 to $8B a year that they can't account for. Health and Human Services is probably a higher amount. There is no accountability in these government agencies. n nI sincerely hope that things improve for you. I know some parts of the country are worse than others. If we can get a change in the White House, the outlook might improve.
Romney saved tens of thousands of jobs at companies he saved from bankruptcy and made financially viable — they remain today because of his efforts (Sports Authority, Domino's, Brookstone, Sealy, Home Depot, Staples, and many more). The dems have a talking point that he was a corporate raider…that is not true–he was a white knight who saved them from ruin. n nHe seems very good to me at articulating himself…he won the last two debates. I find him very presidential without even trying. I want my president to be ivy league (he is Harvard JD/MBA), smart, and rich so that he doesn't steal the furniture in the White House like Hillary and Bill. n nHis quote was taken out of context by the media…he said he didn't are about the very poor because they have a safety net. They get modest income, sometimes housing, healthcare and foodstamps. You are exactly the person Romney said he cared about helping…those stuck in economic "no man's land" where there is little or no assistance, including healthcare. My two brothers were self employed, had single policy insurance, got cancer and had their insurance cancelled at the end of the year of diagnosis. In Massachusetts, they would not have worried as much as they did in the states where they live. n nRomney did make a lot of money at Bain, but since making it, he's lived a life of service to his country. He took no money as governor of Massachusetts, no money while saving the SLC Olympics, he went back to Bain when they fell into hard economic times and made them profitable again (for a salary of $1). n nThe very best way to help you and anyone else is a vibrant economy where jobs are abundant, where jobs are in the private sector so they don't overburden taxpayers, and where taxes are low so that people…wealthy and otherwise…can start businesses to keep citizens employed.
@Michelmas12: I remember back in the 1990's on an episode of 60 Minutes where some woman was pleading with John Kasich "don't cut the money for my dance group". ALL citizens are hurting now, because an elite group of people have gamed the system to their advantage, and stolen wealth from the nation. But the middle class, too, is addicted to the trough of public welfare. One of the most damaging forms of middle class welfare is the student loan. Most young adults go to university because it is the expected thing to do, a rite of passage, the next step in their lives. The easy accessibility of government money has brought down the value of higher education. My girlfriend works for a state college in financial aid, so I've heard about the ways in which people cheat or use the system, or are barely capable but still manage to squeeze money. And then the flip side of that is that the terms on student loans now are so draconian, people are going to be in debt for a good portion of their lives over the matter.
I am an adunct instructor in business and technology at a community college and I am also amazed at how students game the system. I had students who were on free financial aid (not loans) because they are disadvantaged, and many of them would never come to class….make an F…repeat the process. We were told not to give them F's instead of W's if they didn't come to class because it would endanger their financial aid. I had students that had taken the same class 3 times…I had them on the fourth. It is a way to make a living for them for a few years. They never really wanted an education…they just wanted the freebees. I hold the college responsible…they got more funding from the state for higher headcounts, so they went along with the theory that these students were serious. It certainly wasn't that way when I went to college on a grant years ago.
Sarah Palin is increasingly irrelevant. I don't think many people really care what she thinks.
Ditto ! sarah has lost her magic !
Talk about pathetic. Another long bash-Palin post before coming to the rather obvious fact that her non-endorsement may be the result of something perfectly innocuous and mundane that also applies to the Romney bootlickers. n n
This just in: Palin now says Republicans should vote for Newt in Nevada "to keep the process going." n nI think that's it: South Carolina, Florida, Nevada — three states add up to an endorsement. n nShe doesn't want to call it that to hang onto the lucrative Fox "analyst" gig. Anyone who has seen her on Fox recently knows her "analysis" consists of some recycled gobblety gook and the only reason people pay any attention to her is to find out who she supports. n nAt some point, Roger Ailes will have to crack down on this game. Palin will never subject herself to questioning by any other TV outfit (for that matter, she's even afraid to go on O'Reilly) so Fox hardly needs to pay her to get her "insights."
Ms. Goodman, I have a better question: why are you still paying attention to the empty-headed, quitter, failed small-state governor, Palin?
All righty then! We'll put you down as undecided.
…best answer of the day…lol
I think the more interesting question is why "The Donald" is going to endorse Newt tomorrow. n nWBZ-radio's Dan Rea made a very interesting point tonight — the Romney campaign is so inwardly focused that only a few people have any real input to what Romney's message is. Rea came out of Boston TV news (WBZ-TV 4, the current CBS and former NBC affiliate) and he called Michelle Bachmann's NH campaign implosion long before I saw it. n nPalin has poor judgment, but she is not stupid, and she is in touch with the populist streak of Americana that is going to elect the next POTUS, whomever it may be. (Personally, I think she would make a great party chair if there were someone there as assistant chair to essentially babysit her, like there was in Alaska — and perhaps "drogue anchor" is a better term.) n nWhat I think Palin is doing is hedging her bets — not that Newt will get the nomination as much as someone coming from his position will — and it might be a re-re-re-invented Romney or it might be someone else. Possibly someone not even yet in the race — anyone heard what Bobby Jindal is up to? And the person I am watching for Florida is Alan West (not Batman, the other Alan West) and whom he endorses if anyone. And West has some issues with the Romney people right now, reportedly redistricting his district in Florida. n nAnd then you throw in the true wild card of Santorum and reports that he stands a good chance to win a couple of the upcoming primaries and things could get really interesting. I don't think he is going to quite say what Gingrich said about Israel (if POTUS and Israel calls saying they intend to attack Iran, what would you say — "How can I help.") but he is pro Israel as are most of the Christian Conservatives. As to Romney, he either is trying to avoid a fight with Ron Paul or — well I like what George Will said about Romney the Technocrat. Not unlike M. Stanley — another Massachusetts Governor who wanted to be President, and how badly did Dukakas get beaten in '88"? n nNo, I don't think that Palin has any interest in, let alone hope for the nomination. Think "Bright Lights, Big City" — they may have flush toilets in Alaska but note I said "may" — I suspect she grew up without one — I think she is quite happy on the sidelines, buying fancy clothes and such.
Oh come on! She wants to stay in the news. Nothing more, nothing less.
That is what I meant by "_Bright Lights, Big City_" — a book from the '80s about a guy who goes to NYC with his girlfriend and looses both her and his way. One of the few written entirely in the 2nd person — I wanted to teach it in HS lit and didn't quite dare. n nIn a way, _Bright Lights, Big City_ is reflective of how idealistic conservatives go down to DC and then forget why they went there. It is how the movement keeps loosing its way…
The democrats actually go with the intention of doing what they do…helping separate you from your money.
Believe me, I'm not paid by any political organization. Romney didn't say he was wrong about healthcare in Massachusetts because: n1- he believes it to be a states' rights issue (like founding fathers designed) n2- he doesn't want a federal mandate (Newt does) n3- he explains healthcare reform in Massachusetts to be the will of the people in that state (which I believe is true) n4- he said in the Oct 20 (or thereabout) debate that he would repeal Obamacare n nThis has nothing to do with Romney, but I believe we do need some type of insurance for low income families. I had two self-employed brothers who got cancer in their 50's and their insurance companies cancelled. It is a terrible feeling to have loved ones who can't get the care they need. It is shameful that people in this country who call themselves compassionate and donate millions to dog shelters would leave fellow citizens with no care. Emergency rooms are costly for uninsured people to use because they have nothing else. I don't know the solution, but I don't think "doing nothing" is the answer either. n nI'm not familiar with the case you mention about fraud. The company itself may have been guilty of fraud (which could be hidden from the Board), but I'm confident Romney would not have known and participated in such…he is a very moral and devout Mormon (unlike Harry Reid). Were there jobs lost under Bain's restructuring…I'm sure there were. But I'd be willing to bet that for every job lost, there were multiple jobs saved because they were ALL on the verge of bankruptcy when they employed Bain. Bain made money because they took a big risk on the capital they invested…that is the nature of venture capital. Big risk = big payoff. That is why people are willing to risk their life savings in the stock market. The nature of that business is also that you win some and lose some…companies are like families….when there are problems, some make it and some don't. Companies can be even more disfunctional than families actually. He had a stellar record and their methods were known as the "Bain Way." They were called white knights because they saved the companies rather than corporate raiders (what the democrats are saying about them). n nYou can't hang all corporate greed on Romney. After he left Bain and became governor of Mass, he took no salary. He took no salary for the SLC Olympics, He has given millions to his church every year and believes in a 10% tithe (God blesses people who do that…and actually asks us to "test him"). In his career he turned down business deals that were against his moral beliefs (like helping a company that did porn movies). n nJust remember, if you are a republican, that the only way Obama can win is to pit the groups within the republican party against each other…and the candidates against each other. As you can tell, I study candidates thoroughly and I'm confident that none of the current republican hopefuls have a chance against Obama. I'm not sure that Christ himself could win against the Chicago dirty political machine (without a miracle of course). Given the lies and personal attacks against our nominee, the full frontal attack of the media against him, and vote fraud via Acorn, I doubt even Romney can win. The only way we have a chance is to coalesce behind the nominee and not listen to anyone but our own conscience. They know we are weak if divided, so we must resolve to not let them succeed. They WILL play a lot of head games, that is why they are out here on blogs every day trying to dissuade republicans from supporting Romney. n nIf nominated, I hope Romney will pick a conservative VP like Daniels or Thune (although I would prefer Christy). I'm extremely disappointed in Mark Levin–not because he doesn't like Romney–but because he attacked his character. Most people have no idea how moral, clean and good devout Mormons are.
Thank you for your reply. n nMy father passed away because we could not afford any medical attention for him. His health issues eventually came to a head, and the hospital and the doctor went to charge us $5,000 for less than 20 minutes of medical attendance (no surgery involved). It's outrageous, and I agree with you that something has to be done. I'm not sure either what the exact solution is, although my inclination is of course that the government got involved in the medical market and distorted the free market process, and that the system needs to be completely reversed and re-capitalized instead of socialized. How a progressive reversal can be accomplished, and sustained, over the course of more than one administration is something I don't know, but I'm sure there are people who have considered the matter and can advise. n nIf RomneyCare is ObamaCare, and the only difference is a distinction between a federal mandate and a state mandate, you do raise the interesting question then of whether constitutional federalism precludes socialism, or can be fit to accommodate it. I don't believe him when he says he will repeal ObamaCare – his past record of flip-flops indicates to me that he will adjust himself for political expediency, and after getting elected, what can the electorate do about it then if he changes his mind and decides to keep it? Impeach him for breaking a campaign promise? I don't owe it to any candidate to take them at their word; the burden of proof is on them – they owe it to me to demonstrate to my satisfaction that they are worthy of being trusted.