• Comment (15)

Sarah Palin's Newt Gingrich Embrace

January 27, 2012 RSS Feed Print

The circling of wagons against former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has been quite a spectacle. Establishment dinosaurs like former Sen. Bob Dole, the Reaganite grande dame Peggy Noonan, the moderate agoniste David Frum, the reclusive Web guerrilla Matt Drudge, even the flame-throwing Ann Coulter—rarely do you see such a diverse array of establishment and movement conservatives in such united opposition to someone who's at least nominally conservative.

Myself, I'd rather see former Gov. Mitt Romney crushed under those wagon wheels.

[See a collection of political cartoons on Mitt Romney]

And so, apparently, does former Gov. Sarah Palin. In an interview with Fox News Business Network, Palin opined:

Look at Newt Gingrich, what's going on with him, via the establishment's attacks. They're trying to crucify this man and rewrite history, rewrite what it is that he has stood for all these years. So it's not just Ron Paul. I believe it's also Newt Gingrich that the establishment, that the liberal media, certainly that the progressives and Democrats don't like.

There's little doubt that, in her tiptoeing characterization of the opposition to Gingrich, she meant to include everyone I included above.

So it came as quite a shock to my system when I found myself saying, "Go Sarah!"

[See photos of Sarah Palin and her family.]

And then I mentally slapped myself across the cheeks.

Of course Sarah Palin is taking this tack. It's in her long-term political interest to see Mitt Romney bloodied and defeated in November. Palin and Rush Limbaugh are the figureheads of a subset of movement conservatives who scorn tactical pragmatism. And if President Obama wins, it will have been a sweet vindication for Palin and Limbaugh and the principled Romney doubters like RedState.com's Erick Erickson who believe that Republicans' failings—either in office or in the failure to win office—are almost always a retribution for the betrayal of conservative values.

It's hard to take totally seriously Palin's defense of Gingrich; if she had chosen to run, I imagine she'd have taken the same line against Gingrich that her congressional counterpart Rep. Michele Bachmann took (and which Romney is now taking to great effect): that the former speaker is a sleazy influence-peddler. It's easy to imagine because it's the truth.

[See a collection of political cartoons on Newt Gingrich.]

But since she can't stop Romney directly, she undermines him indirectly—which is why she intervened in the South Carolina to help deliver the state to Gingrich and why she's speaking out on his behalf now. It's not out of love for Gingrich; it's simply to keep the race going, and thereby damage Romney.

As a short-term tactic, Palin's magic worked brilliantly. But only briefly.

I should note that I don't think Palin is acting purely from a position of calculation. She's more in touch with the conservative id than anyone in Washington; she knows Romney is a weak candidate precisely because of his utter fraudulence.

It's going to be interesting to see what how just how tightly she ultimately chooses to embrace the Romney candidacy in the coming months.

Tags:
2012 presidential election,
Newt Gingrich,
Sarah Palin,
politics,
Mitt Romney

Reader Comments Read all comments (15)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Speaking of polling agencies--are they reporting facts? This excerpt, from a book titled, "Media Polls in American Politics," discusses the topic of polling, including, potential polling mayhem. Among other chapter topics on polling is Chapter Four: "Polling Pitfalls: Sources of Error in Public Opinion Polls, by Henry E. Brady, and Gary R. Orren, and Chapter Five, by Michael R. Kaga, titled: "Variability Without Fault: Why Even Well-Designed Polls Can Disagree," discusses the accuracies and inaccuracies of polling agencies. Even citing a specific poll does not guarantee accurate polling results. In addition, Chapters Six and Seven of this same book discusses the impact of polls on the public, on journalists and on the state of Democracy. The whole book is a must-read for those who count poll agencies as sources of accuracy.

Citation:

Mann, Thomas E. and Gary R. Orren (editors). Media Polls in American Politics. 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., The Brookings Institution, 1992.

pp. 55-94; pp. 95-124.

ann keenan of MI 11:17AM January 31, 2012

Any of us can quote anyone else, and as long as we cite the author of that quote, and place quote marks around that exact quote, we could SAY we are telling the facts. But what if that person we quoted is lying? When facts are needed, are those we quote actually giving us the facts?

As an example: David Barton, historian for the Republican Party, and former Chairman of the Texas Republican Party, quotes two (of many quotes) by the Founding Fathers:

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!" -- Patrick Henry

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves . . . according to the Ten Commandments of God." -- James Madison

Sounds great doesn't it? It is even more encouraging that Newt Gingrich has promised he will be working closely with David Barton when Gingrich is President; Mike Huckabee calls him a great historian, and Glenn Beck regards Barton as "the most important man in America." Mike Huckabee has even said that people should be "held at gunpoint" to listen to David Barton. Obviously, these quotes are facts.

Unfortunately, "the facts," as offered by Gingrich, Huckabee, and Beck--are NOT, in fact, actual facts. In addition, Gingrich, Huckabee, and Beck KNOW that Barton is not telling the truth, and still praise him!

To say, then, that we have done the right thing by placing quotation marks around a statement, does NOT make the statement TRUE.

David Barton is, in fact, NOT a historian, and NOT an honest man. This does not stop him from concocting "quotes of the Founding Fathers," however. If you care to create a quote about David Barton, you might say then: "David Barton does not tell the facts," and you would be telling facts about David Barton.

If we SAY we are quoting facts, it is probably facts that people expect. Are we certain when we cite "the facts," that we are, indeed, reporting facts? Keep in mind, also, that most of the political websites on the Internet are not reporting FACTS. These Websites are reporting the POLITICAL AGENDA that will sway the voter. These sites are NOT required to uphold accuracy in the media, ever since President Ronald Reagan eliminated the words: "accuracy in media," from the FCC guidelines--in 1987

ann keenan of MI 2:12AM January 31, 2012

P.S.

Newt going up so quicky with Newt's stuff coming out is BAD SIGN FOR BUMA...

Bill Hedges of MO 10:43PM January 29, 2012

Scott Galupo

Scott Galupo

Scott Galupo is a Washington-based freelance writer. He formerly worked for House Republican Leader John Boehner, and was a staff writer for The Washington Times.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement