Palin on Newt: ‘I’m glad he’s staying in it’ (Sarah to Rick: "Oh, Boo-hoo!")

56 posted on Wednesday, March 07, 2012 11:00:22 AM by Tabi Katz: “Was she “boo-hooing” the newt’s earlier calls for Santorum to drop out? Honestly, what is her problem with Santorum? The two seemed like they were cut from a similar cloth - both solid social conservatives who practice what they preach, and whom the GOP leadership has joined the media in trying to marginalize and ridicule. That’s exactly why I liked Palin. What’s come over her?”

What follows is emphatically **NOT** a criticism of Palin. I'm not going there so don't read things into what I'm writing that I don't mean.

I would like somebody who has on-the-ground knowledge of Alaska to give their opinion on why Gingrich did so poorly in Alaska despite the endorsement by Mr. Palin and the almost-but-not-quite endorsement of Sarah Palin.

I would also like an answer to TabiKatz’s question about what problem, if any, Palin has with Santorum.

Here's my guess, based on no inside knowledge whatsoever: perhaps Palin sees Gingrich as a fighter from the outside, much like herself, and her views are more pro-Gingrich than anti-Santorum.

That's entirely legitimate, by the way.

The fact is that Santorum and Gingrich **DO** have key differences in personality and political approach — Santorum was a team player who worked to get things done for conservatives in Washington by building consensus, while Gingrich was a bomb-thrower who broke up establishment views by advocating new and radical visions for the future.

Both approaches have a legitimate place in politics and you can't win long-term without people from both personalities in leadership.

The best combination for the top leadership roles, in my view, is someone who clearly articulates a vision for the future without needlessly antagonizing people who don't have to be enemies. (Remember Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment on not attacking a fellow Republican?) However, for someone like that to lead effectively, hard-edged helpers are needed who aren't afraid to get reputation for being street brawlers.

I could support Gingrich and there's a lot I like about him; I've admired his role in doing what virtually everyone thought was impossible by taking back the House of Representatives after decades of Democratic Party control. If it weren't for his personal history, I might have been on his supporter list for a long time. The problem is that just as someone like Santorum needs brawlers, someone like Gingrich needs quiet consensus-builders to be effective.

There are reasons Newt Gingrich got a reputation as an absent-minded professor with a new wild-eyed idea every week, and they're the same reasons that entrepreneurs who create start-up companies often don't get to run them long-term. The methods that propel a backbencher to leadership are not the methods needed to lead, and it's a big part of what went wrong during Gingrich's time as speaker. I think Gingrich could be president, but he'd need a very solid team of cabinet secretaries to effectively put his ideas into action — just as Santorum would need people with Gingrich's personality to engage in the bitter combat needed to defeat liberals in the Congress.

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.