Sarah Weighs In
Mothership_Greg ·
Jan 28 at 1:41pm
Have fun with this one, folks:
As Rush and others pointed out, if Nancy Reagan had ever thought that Newt was in any way an opponent of her beloved husband, she would never have even appeared on a stage with him, let alone presented him with an award and said such kind things about him. Nor would Reagan’s son, Michael Reagan, have chosen to endorse Newt in this primary race. There are no two greater keepers of the Reagan legacy than Nancy and Michael Reagan. What we saw with this ridiculous opposition dump on Newt was nothing short of Stalin-esque re-writing of history. It was Alinsky tactics at their worst.
- Comment (145)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (8)
Comments :
Oct '10
Re: Sarah Weighs In
And she's one of the few who defended Newt on the Anti-Bain OWS class warfare assault from the Left vs Romney. Not even Limbaugh and Rudy Giuliani went that far.
Jun '10
Re: Sarah Weighs In
Ain't this beautiful? God love her.
I really love what she said about the 2008 election and how little research was done against Obama -- even by our guys. Unfortunately, Palin should blame McCain but she can't because she owes him. But, it's not wrong to go after the GOP elite in this way because they are definitely complicit. This is the next best thing and really more appropriate for this election anyway.
She is one of the very few who see the problems with this country in the way that I do. I want a shake up in the complacency of the GOP. Newt is now truly vetted sufficiently to show these credentials to us. By going after Newt in the really ugly way that they have done has put him firmly on our side and he is a powerful spokesman for us. No one can do a better job of cleaning house than Newt.
Oct '11
Re: Sarah Weighs In
Sarah, if you're reading this, the time to go all in is right now.
Mar '11
Re: Sarah Weighs In
It's really disgraceful the way that Newt has been attacked as some kind of leftist by the party establishment. He's made his mistakes and been wrong about things, but leftist? Hell no. Even though 1994 was brought about by Congressional scandals, it never would have happened without Newt leading the charge. He took us from backbenchers to majority, and we've held it more often than not since 1994. He's a huge reason for that.
Oct '10
Re: Sarah Weighs In
watch this video with kudlow and gingrich. here's the short version.
Edited on Jan 28 at 12:28amSep '10
Re: Sarah Weighs In
Here we have the squishy moderate wing and the establishment, but I repeat myself, daily trying to take over the Reagan brand rewriting history. It's so obvious. To them, Reagan is nothing more than a brand. There's no real context. Most of these people disavowed Reagan while he was in the middle of the fray. They have managed to find about 18 out of Gingirch's millions of words spoken (no exagageration), a man who has nuanced ideas and approaches to various issues, spoken in the midst of turbulent political times, to try to damage him with the unwashed , who they believe worspip RR out of ignorance and iconography.
They will fail. They are exposing themselves.
Edited on Jan 28 at 5:21amApr '11
Re: Sarah Weighs In
From her lips to the Florida voters ears.
Sep '10
Re: Sarah Weighs In
John Marzan: watch this video with kudlow and gingrich. here's the short version. · 5 hours ago
Edited 5 hours ago
Short version Larry Kudlow Wall St. Republican. Wall St. Republicans are very much like Wall St. Democrats only they work in different sectors, has anyone noticed? I mean, they aren't much different from each other. Boomberg and Corzine great American capitalists, I suppose.
A Wall St. Republican knows little or nothing about freedom, and not too much about politics. They don't understand the underpinnings of capitalism, they know finance they know data and analysis. They have tons of money riding on each election and they always will vote their financial interests. Often their finaciial interstes conflict with freedom and middle-class interests.
They know so little that they think anything they do is great for America, and they hide behind this shibollth of "capitalism when convienient. Most of these people don't even know what capitalism is, they only know it's good for them.
May '10
Re: Sarah Weighs In
This is a bad time in our nation's history for another civil war. This is what this is creating. You win this kind of disagreement at the ballot box. It's what primaries are for. I was a fan of Sarah Palin's BEFORE McCain named her. I was SO EXCITED when I woke up one morning and discovered that she was his choice. I was so ticked off when he began giving her the shaft late in the campaign, and afterwards, through his surrogates.
BUT, this is counterproductive at this time. I'm sorry for Newt fans on this board, but a Newt candidacy would be a disaster for any chance of a Republican congress, and thus the country. This is inside baseball stuff. And the country needs a united party.
Look at it this way: if Mitt is willing to go smashmouth with Newt, then we can expect him to do the same with Barry.
Sometimes, you will take criticisms from some people and then hear the same words from another person, and be offended if it comes from them.
That's the way the country is with Newt.
My two cents.
Aug '11
Re: Sarah Weighs In
Keith Preston:
Look at it this way: if Mitt is willing to go smashmouth with Newt, then we can expect him to do the same with Barry.
The difference for me is the how. Mitt is going after Newt with lies and distortions and every dirty trick in the book. That's not principled.
I want someone who takes down Obama on principle; who focuses the world on the differences between conservatism and leftism and shows the historical corrupting force that leftism is. (Newt was doing that quite well until he had to start responding to Mitt's dirty-tricks squad.)
Mitt doesn't even understand the differences in philosophy. He just sees different ways of managing. Even if he does manage to beat Obama, he won't be putting a stake in the corpse of leftism the way Newt would. Further, he can't articulate reasons that lefty socialism is bad, particularly when he has his own brand of Massachusetts socialism hanging around his neck like an albatross.
Mitt can only beat Obama by dirty tricks and a vain hope that people are tired of President Obama. He can't beat him in the public square of ideas.
Edited on Jan 28 at 5:50pmAug '11
Re: Sarah Weighs In
And no, I don't think he sees the danger of Obama-style socialism or larger government. For him it's all just something to manage. He won't get government out of our lives; he'll just erode liberty differently.
Mar '11
Re: Sarah Weighs In
If Romney wins Florida big and starts showing momentum in National polls, Palin will start priming the Santorum pump. She is clearly in the ABO camp, but is also of the somebody besides Romney mindset.
Edited on Jan 28 at 8:14amMay '10
Re: Sarah Weighs In
I think Sarah diminishes herself here. "Alinsky tactics at their worst"?! Not by a longshot. It's not even spin, never mind out-and-out lying, which is what Alinskyites do on their way to fomenting hatred and violence.
Gingrich is much more of a mixed bag than his supporters want to be true about him. They want him to be the Sarah Palin of this cycle. But he's just not.
And Republicans who highlight his checkered history and worrying character traits are not in the position of the leftists on a search and destroy mission.
May '10
Re: Sarah Weighs In
Douglas, I don't consider him a leftist. But his record does include a lot of leftism. More than Romney's.
It's a problem.
Aug '11
Re: Sarah Weighs In
I recognize that he's not Sarah Palin. But I also recognize his clear intellect, his understanding of history, and his dogged determination to expose leftist socialism for the liberty-destroying worldview that it is.
Remember that that's how Newt began to rise in the polls -- not this tit-for-tat battle against Mitt Romney, but because he clearly articulated what was wrong with Obama-ism. People loved that.
We don't see that from Mitt. (And yes, I know the mantra: he's saving himself for the general election. Sorry, not buying that one.)
May '10
Re: Sarah Weighs In
DrewInWisconsin
But I also recognize his clear intellect, his understanding of history, and his dogged determination to expose leftist socialism for the liberty-destroying worldview that it is.
Remember that that's how Newt began to rise in the polls....because he clearly articulated what was wrong with Obama-ism.
I think he began to rise in the polls when he attacked the media. As a long-time supporter of the individual mandate, cap and trade, ethanol subsidies and various other disastrous big-government initiatives, I really don't think he's in the best position to attack Obama-ism over the long haul of a campaign, never mind replace it from office.
I also find him--intellectually speaking--more nimble and glib than clear. Very unlike Reagan, for instance, he has shown himself prone to using his rhetorical skills in the service of bad ends. (E.g. The Paul Ryan plan is "right-wing social engineering.")
Reagan had a clear and consistent vision of reality which he was able to communicate effectively. Gingrich can effectively communicate about whatever idea he latches onto moment by moment.
Edited on Jan 28 at 9:34amMay '10
Re: Sarah Weighs In
Another point I think Sarah overlooks. At least many of the Republicans who oppose Newt (Mark Belling is a striking case in point) can in no way be considered establishment types in the mold of Karl Rove.
They are much better described as movement conservatives who are deeply persuaded that if Newt Gingrich is our nominee, we will lose and lose big, not because conservatism can't win, but because Newt Gingrich is not a true conservative.
The only true conservative left in the race is Santorum.
If it comes down to Romney or Gingrich, I think Romney the much better bet.
Jul '10
Re: Sarah Weighs In
DrewInWisconsin
The difference for me is the how. Mitt is going after Newt with lies and distortions and every dirty trick in the book. That's not principled.
I want someone who takes down Obama on principle; who focuses the world on the differences between conservatism and leftism and shows the historical corrupting force that leftism is. (Newt was doing that quite well until he had to start responding to Mitt's dirty-tricks squad.)
And the way Newt went after Clinton while having an affair of his own was completely principled and disciplined? If your looking for principled politics, Newt Gingrich is absolutely the wrong place to look. I understand making that argument objectively against Mitt, but not somehow in defense of Gingrich.
Jul '10
Re: Sarah Weighs In
Mothership_Greg
This is simply false. If Nancy Regan only publicly appeared with supporters of her husband, she would never have walked on stage with Clinton or Obama. Or any Democrat for that matter. Once again, Palin mixes her own flawed understanding of history with present day politics and falls flat.
Jun '10
Re: Sarah Weighs In
Really like Sarah, but this Alinsky/Stalinesque stuff is over-the-top. It was Marco Rubio who had to chide Newt for his misrepresentations of the record.
Edited on Jan 28 at 2:10pm