Sarah Palin: “Cannibals in the GOP Establishment Employ Tactics of the Left”

From Sarah Palin’s Facebook page:

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 Stalin-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

See also Eliiot Abrams Caught Misleading On Newt by Jeffery Lord

One Moment in the Florida Debate

Rick Santorum gave an effective breakdown of some of the flaws in Romneycare. Among other problems that he cited with what became the blueprint for Obamacare was the individual mandate:

 “In Massachusetts, everybody is mandated as a condition of breathing to buy health insurance,” Santorum said. “And if you don’t, you have to pay a fine.”

Romney sought to brush it back, saying, “It’s not worth getting angry about.”

So there we have Romney’s position on liberty — it’s not worth getting angry about.

There might be disagreement among certain former residents of Massachusetts, such as John Hancock, John Adams, and those who attended the first tea party.

Ideas That Are Right For America

Speaking to Univision Obama was asked whether he’d rather run against Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney. His answer:

“What I can say is this: That whoever their nominee is, they represent ideas that I think are wrong for America.”

Yeah, like capitalism, free markets, individual liberty, limited government, a federal budget, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, government of and by the people, economic prosperity, American exceptionalism, abundant clean and affordable energy, free choice in health care, low taxes, allowing people to choose their own light bulbs, etc., etc.  We don’t want all those bad ideas, we need good ideas like socialism, crony capitalism, back alley light bulbs, unsustainable national debt, stealing the future of the next generation, pouring money down a hole on worthless solar panel companies, high unemployment, worst year ever for home sales, class warfare and resentment, Occupy hooligans trashing pubic spaces and looting,  and lots of other and similar really good ideas.

Obama is a snob whose grammar is wrong. The first clause of his sentence is the object instead of the subject so whoever is wrong; whomever is correct.

“The gun may be one of the most important instruments of peace and stability that we have in this world.”

Peter van Uhm, Chief of Defence The Netherlands:

Maybe I just didn’t get it but there is little indication Peter van Uhm understands that his father, a baker, could become an excellent shot because Dutch civilians, in the 1930s at least, were familiar with guns. Uhm appears not to see the contradiction between his thesis that guns are important tools for stopping evil and the fact that, as he said standing on stage holding a modern rifle, “most of you in this audience have probably never been this close to a gun.”

On the other hand, Peter van Uhm is a renaissance man of the enlightenment compared to George H.W.Bush who in the summer of 1992 opposed lifting a United Nations arms embargo in order to allow the poorly armed Bosniaks to arm themselves in defense against the Bosnian Serbs. He was content to rely on “peace dividend” rhetoric while people were being slaughtered in “ethnic cleansing.”

85 per cent of respondents believe that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution means that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, while only seven per cent openly disagree with this view.

What Really Happened In The Gingrich Ethics Case In 1995?

No one needs to wonder about that because Byron York has written the comprehensive examination of the matter at the Washington Examiner:

Given all the attention to the ethics matter, it’s worth asking what actually happened back in 1995, 1996, and 1997. The Gingrich case was extraordinarily complex, intensely partisan, and driven in no small way by a personal vendetta on the part of one of Gingrich’s former political opponents. It received saturation coverage in the press; a database search of major media outlets revealed more than 10,000 references to Gingrich’s ethics problems during the six months leading to his reprimand. It ended with a special counsel hired by the House Ethics Committee holding Gingrich to an astonishingly strict standard of behavior, after which Gingrich in essence pled guilty to two minor offenses. Afterwards, the case was referred to the Internal Revenue Service, which conducted an exhaustive investigation into the matter. And then, after it was all over and Gingrich was out of office, the IRS concluded that Gingrich did nothing wrong. After all the struggle, Gingrich was exonerated.

Byron York’s article can be read in it’s entirety here.

Eddie Haskell Mitt Romney is distorting the history here for political gain, but not nearly as bad as the risible and vicious and false characterization that Nancy Pelosi, a loathsome toad of a woman, is doing in this video. “There’s something I know…” she says. It’s time for the term “Pelosism” to take it’s place in the America’s political lexicon, right next to “McCarthyism.”

UPDATE:  Romney is trying to capitalize on the toad’s claim to know something but a spokesman for the toad says she doesn’t know anything not already in the public domain.  What’s in the public domain is that Newt was cleared of all wrongdoing by the IRS. Professor Jacobson says:  “Newt only sat on the couch with Pelosi, but Romney’s getting in bed with her.”

Obamacare In the Supreme Court — Uncommon Knowledge

Peter Robinson is a former speech writer for Ronald Reagan. He wrote the line, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,” that Reagan delivered so well at the Brandenburg Gate, June 12, 1987. He has for the last several years taped regular videos for his “Uncommon Knowledge” project in which he interviews public figures on political and economics issues. This latest video features Chicago Law School Professor Richard Epstein and former Justice department lawyer and current Law Professor at University of California at Berkley John Yoo discussing the Obamacare case now pending in the Supreme Court. I think I can safely say it is better than anything you are likely to see on television.

Goods News On Traffic Fatalities

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

The number of traffic fatalities fell three percent between 2009 and 2010, from 33,808 to 32,788. Since 2005, fatalities have dropped 25 percent, from a total of 43,510 fatalities in 2005. The same estimates also project that the fatality rate will be the lowest recorded since 1949, with 1.09 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled, down from the 1.13 fatality rate for 2009. The decrease in fatalities for 2010 occurred despite an estimated increase of nearly 21 billion miles in national vehicle miles traveled.

This report didn’t give the absolute number of traffic fatalities in 1949 so I looked it up. It was 30,249. The way the above was written it might appear they are stating the fatality rate in 1949 as 1.13, but that was the rate in 2009.  The fatality rate is the important number which is the number or fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles driven.  It’s of limited use to compare the number of fatalities in 2010 to the number in 1949 since so many fewer vehicle miles were driven in 1949 than in 2010.

The 2010 fatality rate of 1.09 is said to be the lowest ever.  The 2005 rate was 1.46.  The fatality rate in 1949 was …apparently nobody knows.  The number of vehicle miles driven in 1949 was…who knows.  The closest I could find was that the fatality rate in the late 1950’s is reputed to have been 5 times higher than it is now.  I don’t know how anyone knows that but it seems reasonable to believe it.

Newt Gingrich on Fox and Friends — Applause In Debates

The New York Times and Drudge both say Newt Gingrich threatened to pull out of future debates if the audience is not allowed to applaud. They claim Newt said as much on Fox and Friends.  Below is a video of that appearance.  You can judge for yourself if Newt actually threatened to pull out of any debates.  I don’t see it. I like Newt in this video. He’s more “presidential” than a lot of what has been seen lately. Or that may be seen soon, like tonight.

Does anyone believe the networks would be trying to limit applause from the audience if they were applauding Eddie Haskell Mitt Romney?