Sarah Palin praises Newt Gingrich, but won’t make endorsement yet

The Boston Herald ^ | December 8, 2011 | Michael A. Memoli

[monkapotamus]

WASHINGTON — Sarah Palin says she won’t make an endorsement in the GOP race just yet. But it sounds like there’s one candidate who could earn her support: Newt Gingrich.

The former Alaska governor, who waited until October to announce she would not be a candidate in the 2012 race, told Fox Business Network that Gingrich has "been a bit more successful" than Mitt Romney in courting party activists...

"He helped balance the budget under Bill Clinton. That is what we need today," she said...

[isthisnickcool]

Let’s see, vote for Perry or follow God’s word. Hmmm

Or keep allah in the WH.....

[magglepuss]

Well said.

“Sure enough, here we are smack dab in the middle of the nomination process running up to 2012, and it’s very difficult to find a dude or dudette that hasn’t acted like a Democrat on a number of occasions. And if we speak up about that, we’re accused of being the person who is out of line. Say what?”

I feel the same way. I have voted R my entire life. I have fallen for the “best we can get” defense over and over. I really don't see much difference in being corrupt, or looking the other way on corruption. But, to many here, that means I have a purity test.

I honestly believe if we end up with a moderate candidate again, then we haven't yet felt enough pain.

[rintense]

Very nice.

Just a small fact that not many here have noticed, but Palin changed her facebook political views from Republican to Conservative this past summer.

[CynicalBear]

The country will get what they deserve either fast or slow. I will not be instrumental in standing in God’s way.

[DoughtyOne]

That’s the direction I’m leaning too.

Appreciate the note of agreement.

[DoughtyOne]

It is nice to know she sees a difference.

Let me ask you this.

If I told the Tea Party I was one of them, backed John McCain against a more Conservative candidate, told the Tea Party that John McCain was one of them, told America I backed John McCain’s political policies, told American I wanted to have illegal immigrants register so they could stay here and work, and wouldn’t be sending them home, would you think I was a Conservative?

If I changed my preference from Republican to Conservative without renouncing my past positions and refraining from any explanations or clarifications, would you see me as a Conservative?

I don’t think so.

Now she’s trying to tell us who the good candidates are, and I’m having a hard time buying into her qualifications to do so, in light of the fact she still hasn’t come to terms with her past support for McCain.

I’m not here to take Conservatives to task. I still feel quite compelled to keep pressure on Palin over a number of issues.

[rintense]

DO, you and I have been over this too many times. I have given your factual information that Hayworth was doomed long before Palin endorsed McCain, etc.

You also know I did not like it when she endorsed McCain and criticized her numerous times.

And I have also, on numerous occasions, said that who someone endorses makes no difference to me, nor will who (in this case) Palin endorses won't make a difference in who I support.

But I will say this... in light of Palin's tough stance on cronyism, Obamacare, the economy, etc., if she endorses Perry, Newt or Romney *before* the Convention, I am done with her.

She's already stated she will support whoever gets the nod because 'its anyone but Obama'.

I do not believe that is a winning strategy, and, will not support that either.

[DoughtyOne]

DO, you and I have been over this too many times. I have given your factual information that Hayworth was doomed long before Palin endorsed McCain, etc.

You can present your view of things, but that doesn't mean that they are above reasoned rebuttal.  I don't remember the exact figures right now and I'm not going to look them up again, but at the time Sarah endorsed McCain, Hayworth was down seven to ten points.  Five weeks afterward, McCain was up by twenty.  If Hayworth had gotten the endorsement, he could have been in a dead heat with McCain.

Palin's appearance before the Tea Party and her assurance that McCain was one of them, gave the Tea Party all they needed to hear, to justify their votes for McCain.

If Palin had not done that, and had not allowed her voice to be played over the biggest Conservative talk radio stations in the state for at least five months, backing McCain, I believe Hayworth would have easily remained competitive.  His funding would have been a lot better. That would have helped considerably.

Sarah's endorsement also gave cover to a number of elected Republican players, who supported McCain over Hayworth.

I don't believe this is a pie in the sky view of things.  It's reasoned.

You also know I did not like it when she endorsed McCain and criticized her numerous times.

Okay, that's great.  I'm not trying to take you personally to task.

And I have also, on numerous occasions, said that who someone endorses makes no difference to me, nor will who (in this case) Palin endorses won't make a difference in who I support.

Okay, but you are savvy and yet, you are not everyone.  We had a lot of folks out for the first time trying to take back America, and it was important to them who someone like Palin was supporting.  They were fired up, she took the time to appear before them, and she was quite popular and persuasive IMO.

But I will say this... in light of Palin's tough stance on cronyism, Obamacare, the economy, etc., if she endorses Perry, Newt or Romney *before* the Convention, I am done with her.

I'm not urging you to take that approach.  I do not think she'll wait that long, but I could be way off base.  We'll see.

She's already stated she will support whoever gets the nod because 'its anyone but Obama'.

I suppose that's a good tactic, but I will admit to thinking it will be very hard to vote for some of our candiates.

I do not believe that is a winning strategy, and, will not support that either.

It seems we agree on a fairly good amount of this.  I guess we should take solace in that.

[rintense]

I gave you a link to a survey which showed Hayworth's negatives were too high to overcome and that Palin's endorsement may have accounted for a 1-5% difference, but still not enough to account for the beating Hayworth took. I can search for it again if you'd like.

Bottom line, Palin was wrong to endorse McCain. But she shouldn't have endorsed Hayworth, either.

As for 'Anyone but Obama', count me out. Glad we have common ground on that.

[DoughtyOne]

I gave you a link to a survey which showed Hayworth's negatives were too high to overcome and that Palin's endorsement may have accounted for a 1-5% difference, but still not enough to account for the beating Hayworth took. I can search for it again if you'd like.

While I don't doubt there is a survey out there that backs what you're stating here, some things really don't make much sense to me if it accurately depicts the political real estate at the time in question.

If Palin's endorsement only accounted for a 1 to 5% difference, then why did Hayworth's trailing figures increase from around 7 to 10%  to over 20% in about five weeks directly after she gave it?

If her endorsement only accounted for 1 to 5%, why did McCain spend millions to air it for over five months?

If Hayworth's negatives were really out of control, why did McCain have to outspend him by over ten to one?  Why did Palin have to misrepresent McCain before the Tea Party?

If Hayworth't negatives were really out of control, why did a number of Republican office holders have to pile on?

There were two or three main issues with Hayworth, and yet I am supposed to believe that over one hundred issues concerning McCain left him with lower negatives?

Bottom line, Palin was wrong to endorse McCain. But she shouldn't have endorsed Hayworth, either.

While I agree regarding McCain, it is without question that Hayworth was better than McCain, and thus the candidate we wanted in the Senate.  We certainly didn't want a Democrat to win the seat.

Rintense, I know there were some issues with Hayworth, but Hayworth was solid on the issues.  I watched that guy for years, and never saw him come down on the wrong side of an issue.  I can't watch McCain for a single week without seeing him destroy us on one issue or another.

As for 'Anyone but Obama', count me out. Glad we have common ground on that.

I'm glad about that too, and as that philosophy applies to McCain vs Hayworth, I really don't see the same type of reasoning at all.

Would Hayworth be representing your state better than McCain right now?  Absolutely.  Would he be representing the nation better?  Absolutely.

He wouldn't have traveled to Libya to back the rebels.  McCain is the Muslim Brotherhood's best friend.  He might just as well be Obama's spokes-person with regard to his Libyan policy.

Huge mistake IMO.

[rintense]

I disagree. Both McCain and Hayworth would have been awful in their own ways- though McCain far worse. In my mind, Hayworth was the 'anybody but McCain' candidate. And after seeing those upside down poll numbers on JD, even a Palin endorsement would not have helped.

With that, I bid you good evening.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for supporting your case.

Take care. Have a good one.

[The Citizen Soldier]

Of the choices left this Palin supporter chooses newt.

Ditto.