Posted on 01/27/2012 3:18:48 PM PST by Timber Rattler
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.
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 Revolution 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.
But this whole thing isn’t really about Newt Gingrich vs. Mitt Romney. It is about the GOP establishment vs. the Tea Party grassroots and independent Americans who are sick of the politics of personal destruction used now by both parties’ operatives with a complicit media egging it on. In fact, the establishment has been just as dismissive of Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. Newt is an imperfect vessel for Tea Party support, but in South Carolina the Tea Party chose to get behind him instead of the old guard’s choice. In response, the GOP establishment voices denounced South Carolinian voters with the same vitriol we usually see from the left when they spew hatred at everyday Americans “bitterly clinging” to their faith and their Second Amendment rights. The Tea Party was once again told to sit down and shut up and listen to the “wisdom” of their betters. We were reminded of the litany of Tea Party endorsed candidates in 2010 that didn’t win. Well, here’s a little newsflash to the establishment: without the Tea Party there would have been no historic 2010 victory at all.
I spoke up before the South Carolina primary to urge voters there to keep this primary going because I have great concern about the GOP establishment trying to anoint a candidate without the blessing of the grassroots and all the needed energy and resources we as commonsense constitutional conservatives could bring to the general election in order to defeat President Obama. Now, I respect Governor Romney and his success. But there are serious concerns about his record and whether as a politician he consistently applied conservative principles and how this impacts the agenda moving forward. The questions need answers now. That is why this primary should not be rushed to an end. We need to vet this. Pundits in the Beltway are gleefully proclaiming that this primary race is over after Florida, despite 46 states still not having chimed in. Well, perhaps it’s possible that it will come to a speedy end in just four days; but with these questions left unanswered, it will not have come to a satisfactory conclusion. Without this necessary vetting process, the unanswered question of Governor Romney’s conservative bona fides and the unanswered and false attacks on Newt Gingrich will hang in the air to demoralize many in the electorate. The Tea Party grassroots will certainly feel disenfranchised and disenchanted with the perceived orchestrated outcome from self-proclaimed movers and shakers trying to sew this all up. And, trust me, during the general election, Governor Romney’s statements and record in the private sector will be relentlessly parsed over by the opposition in excruciating detail to frighten off swing voters. This is why we need a fair primary that is not prematurely cut short by the GOP establishment using Alinsky tactics to kneecap Governor Romney’s chief rival.
As I said in my speech in Iowa last September, the challenge of this election is not simply to replace President Obama. The real challenge is who and what we will replace him with. It’s not enough to just change up the uniform. If we don’t change the team and the game plan, we won’t save our country. We truly need sudden and relentless reform in Washington to defend our republic, though it’s becoming clearer that the old guard wants anything but that. That is why we should all be concerned by the tactics employed by the establishment this week. We will not save our country by becoming like the left. 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
Weird, Palin did not mention any of the figures she was attacking in general, by name did she?
The article itself is rebuke to the establishment and the major figures of Bloody Thursday, just read post 242, you can see Rush in action.
Do you have any links to anything that references what that Rush said on Thursday put him in that category? Thanks.
See post 242.
Rush played it today, I heard it.
What the heck are you going on about?
I wish this was true, but, apparently, it isn't.
You are correct that there are things about Romney that perhaps many GOP voters don't know. But, from all I see, they don't care.
Just as there are many freepers who don't care about Gingrich's foibles, there are many conservatives out there who don't care about Romney's.
That's very wrong on both counts, but it's the way it is in this election cycle.
The standard seems to be ONLY "who can beat Obama."
Newt obviously has done great things for the cause of conservatism, and he brings some fantastic talents to the table, but that's not what these primary voters are focused on. If he can't convince people that he can defeat Obama, they are not going to vote for him the primaries.
That is all.
The battle for the nomination is fundamentally a disagreement about which man, Romney or Gingrich, is more likely to defeat Obama. The only way "dirt" matters is if it makes it more or less likely that a candidate can defeat Obama.
You can try to dismiss my observations of the political landscape out of hand by robotically accusing me of being pro-Romney and anti-Newt, but the plain fact is that I'm just calling it like I see it.
I know it's not pretty.
Sorry, got it; thanks.
You often hear here on FR that "all the candidates are flawed," "no one is perfect."
Yet few seem to be willing to countenance that the other guy, the one who doesn't support "your" candidate, is using the exact same rationale to justify overlooking how much his candidate's stuff stinks.
At this point, I really think the "beat Obama" meme has hardened to the point that many voters are going to base their decision solely on how likely they think it is that a candidate can defeat Obama.
For months, that was the single rationale for Romney offered up by the likes of Ann Coulter et al. She thinks Romney is the one who can beat Obama. Okay, lately, she has been trying to up her game and come up with sort of reasons for supporting Romney (such as saying he's the only one who will fix immigration), but the fact is not very well hidden that all this is about is who they think, rightly or wrongly, can beat Obama.
The problem is that, as I write this, I am just back from checking the news and it looks like Gingrich is fading in Florida.
I don’t think it will necessarily be all over if Romney (or, for that matter, Gingrich) wins Florida. But “achieving inevitability” could, possibly, be within reach to either of those men next week.
Gingrich has a high mountain to climb if he loses Florida. No debates are scheduled and the next states are said to favor Romney, and there is at least one state with a lot of delegates (Michigan, IIRC) where Gingrich failed to get on the ballot.
Palin may have been pushing Newt forward — by her SC gambit — to see if he would sink or swim, intending to jump in and save the day if need be.
Hard to wrap my head around whether that would work right now!
We’ll just have to see how things develop.
Didn’t say it was a good plan.
Just observed that it’s what seems to be happening.
That said, a good plan — based on real-world observations — might be to focus on selling the electability of one’s preferred candidate. Newt MUST make this a more prominent part of his pitch or I fear he’s sunk.
It was interesting how Rush used his brother today as a foil when pressed by callers to endorse or have David endorse in his stead, a la Todd Palin; so David sent word that IF he were voting in the FL primary, he’d vote for Santorum. Don’t know if that came out before or after word about Santorum going back to PA.
That was a pretty lame defense of Romney.
‘People don’t care’, ‘people don’t need to know’, all pretty lame in defense of such a worst case candidate, such an anti-conservative, and such a failure as an elected official.
If you are going to push Romney, then put some meat behind it, overcome our objections, sell the man to us.
Where on God’s green earth did I ever say that Romney was more electable than anyone else, or even electable?
Please pay more attention so that we can actually discuss what I actually said.
Romney’s electability is the rationale of many of his supporters.
Therefore, if one wants to try to dislodge his support, yammering on about how he’s not conservative and so on just gets shrugged off by those people. THEY DON’T CARE. They want someone to defeat Obama and they have to be persuaded that Romney can’t.
Where's the evidence that his supporters, or those willing to vote for him, care?
They don't, apparently. They think Romney is more likely to defeat Obama than the other candidates, so they will vote for him..
There are many voters who don't know much about Gingrich, either, not the stuff that will come out if his candidacy continues. But they don't care. They think Gingrich is more likely to defeat Obama than the other candidates, so they will vote for him.
Yes, but at this point Palin has gone so far in endorsing Newt without saying so, that it’s getting to be a little weird.
What I mean is they are going to end up with the synergistic controversy anyway at this rate, so why not just make an honest, forthright endorsement.
(One freeper mentioned she was bound by contract not to endorse, but another said that wasn’t true. FWIW.)
Except it wasn't. A defense of Romney.
Last time I'm telling you the same thing:
It doesn't matter how lame the rationale for voting for Romney is. It's the Romney voters' rationale. And if you're trying to get Newt elected -- you ARE trying to do that, aren't you? or are you here jawboning for the sake of jawboning? -- if you're trying to get Newt elected, it's best to realize that the focus, both for and against, has to be on electability.
Good night!
I just don’t think that you are convincing anyone here to vote for and support Mitt Romney, you are going to have to bring in some red meat to convert us.
Palin is having a positive effect on the race, and is helping us against Romney, lay off her, she knows what she is doing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.