“And I say, you know, you got to rage against the machine at this point in order to defend our republic and save what is good and secure and prosperous about our nation,” Palin continued. “We need somebody who is engaged in sudden and relentless reform and is not afraid to shake up the establishment. So, if for no other reason, rage against the machine, vote for Newt, annoy a liberal, vote Newt, keep this vetting process going, keep the debate going — as more debate happens, Judge [Jeanine Pirro], we’ll hear more from him and other candidates who will oppose his position, he claims he’s not part of the establishment, let’s hear more about it.”

Thanks Daily Caller

(CBS News) It wasn’t an endorsement, but Sarah Palin gave Newt Gingrich the next best thing on Tuesday, saying she would vote for the former speaker — if she lived in South Carolina.

Speaking to Sean Hannity on Fox News, the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee declared Gingrich the winner of Monday night’s Republican debate, comparing his performance to boxing legend Joe Frazier.

“He came out there swingin’, talking about work,” Palin said. “Talkin’ about jobs and work ethic and how government needs to get out of the way in order for Americans to have a sense of opportunity to work, and I think that’s what a lot of voters have been craving to hear.”

I’m not a big Newt fan, mostly due to his support of anthropogenic global warming legislation and regulations, but, I could vote for him, unlike Ron Paul. That said, he did have a fantastic debate, and gave the best answers.

Asked if she was any closer to giving an endorsement, Palin told the Fox News host that she could only tell him what she’d do if she were a South Carolinian. “If I had to vote in South Carolina, in order to keep this thing going, I’d vote for Newt, and I would want this to continue.” Such a position indicated her desire for the political vetting to keep unfolding.

So, kind of a back-handed endorsement. We’ll see if this helps or hurts Gingrich in the upcoming Primary. In reality, though, the next few debates will probably make the most difference. Palin lost quite a bit of support after she finally decided (late) to not run for president after all that time hemming and hawing.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Romney has resisted releasing his tax returns, and his campaign has thus far refused to provide the hard proof to back up his claims about Bain.

“Governor Romney has claimed to have created 100,000 jobs at Bain, and people are wanting to know: is there proof?” Palin told Sean Hannity on Fox News.

Rick Tyler, former Gingrich aide and head of Newt Gingrich’s Super PAC, has already accused Romney of having created those 100,000 jobs in Asia and Mexico. Earlier this week, Big Government pointed out that Romney’s claim to have created 100,000 jobs contrasts with claims he made during his 1994 U.S. Senate campaign, when he claimed to have created 10,000 jobs at Bain. Romney retired from Bain Capital in 1999.

Palin said that Romney needed to come clean about his record, given the likelihood that Democrats would probe the tax issue and Romney’s tenure at Bain if he were to become the Republican nominee.

(USA Today) Republican presidential candidates have been warming up for months for tonight’s Iowa caucuses.

The results will start a sprint — or a marathon.

For more than three decades, the opening contest here in Iowa has narrowed the Republican field and sharpened a race that was then decided by a handful of early contests, well before most states had voted. This time, though, a revised primary calendar and changed party rules have set the stage for what could be a longer and less predictable slog.

In fact, the point of Iowa is not really to pick the winner, but to eliminate other candidates. The meme going around that Iowa has never picked the eventual Party candidate is untrue. Bush 43 and Bob Dole won. Carter and Obama won. Iowa should be ashamed over the last two. Anyhow

(Examiner) What Iowa effectively does is narrow the field, weeding out some while simultaneously lifting others to a platform they never approached before. One can afford to lose in Iowa, but only if the loss is deemed by the media as still “exceeding expectations.” In 2008 John McCain was “allowed” to finish fourth because he had always made New Hampshire his focus, but Fred Thompson was all-but-declared dead after campaigning hard in the state and finishing third. Failing to garner double-digit support (see then Governor Bill Richardson in 2008) is deemed an unpardonable sin, and the media promptly ignores the candidate until they announce they are leaving the race.

In contrast, a candidate who exceeds expectations in Iowa is immediately lavished with the kind of free media praise that campaign managers dream of at night. The candidate is praised for his or her ability to “connect” with the everyday person. The candidate must have a “winning message” and an outstanding organizing ability. If the candidate recovered from lower poll numbers they are given the “comeback” label and complimented on their grit and perseverance.

Back to the USA Today article, the end result could be provide a quick end to the nomination process, with Mitt Romney as the winner, according to the article, especially if he goes on to win New Hampshire, or a long, long slog. A third option could be someone else jumping in to the race. Doubtful. The only big name out there really being considered is Sarah Palin, and she has already signaled that she doesn’t have the fire in her belly to run.

By Wednesday, we could see Bachmann and Perry out, though they say they are going to South Carolina and bypassing New Hampshire. Santorum should survive. When it comes to Newt and Paul, we’ll have to see.

It’s too late in some states, but these folks want you to write her in. If that is where your heart leads you, then go for it. Why not?

In her exclusive interview with Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D, AZ), ABCs Diane Sawyer began with a retrospective of the terrible crime committed against the Congresswoman by a mentally disturbed, a-political gunman. But true to her left-wing agenda, Sawyer could not resist illicitly linking Tea Party activists, anti-Obamacare sentiment, and even Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to what was perpetrated against Rep. Giffords on that terrible day.

Yes, even though these calumnies against conservatives and Sarah Palin have been thoroughly discredited, Sawyer links them anyway to the shocking crime that took the lives of six people, injured others, and delivered a debilitating head wound to Representative Giffords.

It was only hours after the shooting occurred on January 8, 2011, that left-wing activists, purported journalists, and Democrat operatives alike began blaming the shooting of Rep. Giffords on “Tea Party hate” and the “violent rhetoric of the right.”

The false narrative was picked up by nearly every Old Media outlet and disgorged from their talking points sheets over and over again. It was days before everyone learned that the killer, one Jared Lee Loughner, had been stalking Giffords for several years before the Tea Party, Obamacare or Sarah Palin became national news.

In fact, killer Loughner was not interested in politics at all. He was just a sick-minded, lunatic that had a crazy infatuation with Rep. Giffords.

The media ultimately stopped bandying about its discredited theory that the shooting was spurred by conservatives, the Tea Party and Gov. Palin, but no apologies were ever uttered by the spinmeisters in the press.

At least we thought that the discredited theory that the Giffords shooting was the fault of conservatives had disappeared. Now, with Sawyer’s new interview, we are once again treated to scenes of Tea Partiers unhappy at townhall meetings in the days before the shooting. We also get a brief scene of Gov. Palin addressing a crowd. So, once more we are visited with the lie that conservatives are at fault for Giffords shooting. Sawyer didn’t say so directly, of course. She’s too slick for that. But by showing Tea Partiers, conservatives, and Palin and painting them as a hostile force against Giffords, Sawyer was obviously linking them to the crime. Sawyer slyly floated irate conservatives as the reason the “atmosphere” of the days before her shooting was so filled with portent of the dangers to come.

Only it’s all a lie. The Tea Party, the dislike the nation has for Obamacare (which is still extant, by the way), and the political activism of Governor Sarah Palin had precisely nothing to do with Giffords’ shooting. Giffords was in Jared Lee Loughner’s gunsights regardless of the political situation in the country in the days leading up to his crime.

In fact, it is more sensible to blame Obama and Democrats for the enflamed political environment then and now. Such levels of vitriol didn’t exist until Obama and Democrats rammed Obamacare through Congress. Dispensing with our proper legislative process, the Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi and President Obama pushed through a bill that was not actually even written, a bill we had to “pass to know what is in it.” In fact, it is a bill that still has high unfavorables that run across party lines.

That Giffords’ shooting is not the Democrat’s fault should go without saying. The enflamed political environment had nothing at all to do with the crime committed that January morning. Democrats aren’t at fault for it. Certainly, neither are Tea Partiers, conservatives, anti-Obamacare activists, or Governor Sarah Palin.

The report is not without its nearly tear inducing moments, though. It is heartwarming to see Rep. Giffords on the road to recovery. It is wonderful to see her speaking clearly, even if she is sometimes reaching for the right words. Sadly Diane Sawyer sullies these wonderful moments by bringing into her report a partisan, left-wing bias against conservatives. But despite Diane Sawyer’s gauche effort to smear America’s conservatives by pushing discredited talking points, Giffords’ pluck and determination shines brightly through the smear job anyway. That is a triumph.

The indefatigable Juana Summers sends over this dispatch from Sarah Palin’s appearance with Greta Van Susteren, in which she took a shot at Herman Cain (whom she called “Herm” at one point) days after his Florida straw poll win:

“Take Herman Cain. He’s doing so well right now. I guess you could say, with all due respect, he’s the flavor of the week. Herman Cain is the one up there who doesn’t look like he’s part of that permanent political class. He came from a working class family. He’s had to make it on his own all these years. We respect that. He has an automatic connection with the electorate. We can all relate to him. He knows the issues and problems we face every day and he’s determined to do something about it.”

“He’s not elite. He doesn’t seem to allow us to be disenchanted with what it is that he’s proposing, because what he proposes in terms of solutions for our economy are based on time tested truths and common sense and true economic principles that will work”

“Herman Cain is a good example of a connection with the voters and why his message – good messenger – he’s resonating with the people.”

Well, that’s rather condescending, is it not?

Bobsyouruncle: “Flavor of the week:” is so condescending. But a self-absorbed narcissist like Palin doesn’t even realize or much care what she sounds like.to other people.

And racist

IndiMidwesterner: So, flavor of the week is chocolate, and Sarah is reported to have a taste for chocolate.

But, really, doesn’t that “flavor of the week” part seem sort of out of place within the quote? It’s like someone talking about something then saying “squirrel!” in the middle. It couldn’t possibly be that context is missing, could it? It’s almost like Maggie only took part of the exchange between Greta and Palin to make Palin look bad. And Maggie knows that she is only providing part of the excerpt

Reporters, meanwhile, are creating a “quasi-reality show” by speculating on who is running and who isn’t, an apparent reference to the current Chris Christie bubble.

Add this to the Politico excerpt, and the flavor of the week comment makes sense

PALIN: Many Republicans, but also just many in the media because for many in the media, this is like a reality show. I think Newsweek, an article that came out the other day, really nailed it when they said that there are media outlets that kind of create this reality show, this intrigue, and who’s going to be the next “flavor of the week.” And they prop somebody up in order to crush the person, it seems, later on.

But I think that a lot of the push for Chris Christie and for others comes not just from those within the party, but those inside baseball, within the media.

Ah. Context. Which came long before the Cain comment. And then there is this, which directly precedes her comments on Cain

VAN SUSTEREN: How does, though, a politician, though, connect with the people and get it across so it doesn’t just sound like more like, Blah, blah, blah? When the politician gets up on the air, probably many of us can sort of mouth the answers for the politician because we know these people for better, for worse, so well, and that they’re going to say. It’s quite predictable.

But how does a politician actually connect with someone in the heartland, for instance?

PALIN: That’s a great question. I think what helps is for that politician is to have a foundation of having come from the real people of America, the working class, those who make up the majority of Americans who are so extremely concerned about the direction of our country.

Take Herman Cain. Look at why he’s doing so well right now. He’s, I guess you could say, with all due respect, the flavor of the week..

So, Sarah Palin wasn’t actually denigrating Herman Cain, she was denigrating the liberal media, and praising Herman Cain. Good thing the the Politico’s Maggie Haberman is practicing ethical journalism, eh?

Oh, and when the heck is Palin going to announce whether she’s running our not? Already September 28th. Tick tock.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach. Please sign the drill now petition.

During his faux “jobs” speech on Sept 8, President Obama went off script for a brief sojourn into history to reveal to one and all that he hasn’t a clue about the subject.

I say off script because these words are not in the prepared text…

Sorry, big guy, but Abe Lincoln was not the “founder of the Republican Party.” In fact, Lincoln wasn’t even a member of the GOP when it was founded. Lincoln stayed in the Whig Party for a while after the GOP was founded in 1854. Lincoln did not start coming the GOP’s way until 1856.

During those two years Lincoln adamantly denied any interest in the GOP but three years after he finally joined the party — mostly because his own Whig Party simply withered away — he became the GOP’s first successful presidential nominee.

Now, the question is this: will the Old Media lambast The One for his complete lack of knowledge about the history of the United States (yes all 57 states). After all, the Old Media has attacked Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann for what they felt were mistaken claims about U.S. History.

But I will say this for The One. At least he finally corrected his most common history gaffe during his faux “jobs” speech.

For the last four years Obama has repeatedly called the transcontinental railroad the “intercontinental railroad.”

But during the Sept. 8 speech he finally, finally got it correct.

… and the media still ignored his lack of knowledge.

(And here is an interesting note about timing. I wrote this yesterday morning but never posted it. I figured I’d just wait until Saturday to post it. But I woke up Sat. morning and found EVERYONE had posted it. I should have posted this stupid thing right after I wrote it!)

Barack Obama is nothing less than a hypocrite on his admonitions over public discourse and the latest example of this truth lies in his refusal to condemn the violence-tinged language of Teamsters president Jimmy Hoffa, not to mention his similar silence on the obscene rhetoric of many of the leading members of the Congressional Black Caucus.

While Obama has tsk tsked folks on the right like Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin and told the nation that we need to start “talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds,” he has turned a blind eye to his own vice president calling political opponents “terrorists,” members of Congress saying that Republicans and Tea Partiers can “go straight to hell,” and just this week walked on stage grinning like a Cheshire Cat immediately after Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa told a Detroit crowd that they intended to “take those sons a bitches out.”

Obama loves to sound as if he’s somehow above old fashioned, boilerplate rhetoric or the mudslinging that is associated with down-and-dirty politics. He not only claims to avoid such rhetoric himself but acts the national scold and wags fingers at others that do indulge such tactics. Well, he does if it happens to be his political opponents indulging that sort of rhetoric, that is. When his side does it, the scold in chief is suddenly silent.

Let us recall the soothing, soaring rhetoric Obama employed after the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords earlier this year. Remember that immediately after the shooting the left-wing Old Media began the drumbeat that it was the “violent rhetoric” of the right that somehow caused that apolitical shooter to take after Giffords — even thought the Tea Party hadn’t come into existence when the shooter first showed his obsession with the congresswoman. Obama scolded America for talking in a way “that wounds.”

“At a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized–at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do–it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.”

Previous to that, Obama pleaded for “civility” in a press conference in November of 2010 saying,

I do believe there is hope for civility. I do believe there’s hope for progress. And that’s because I believe in the resiliency of a nation that’s bounced back from much worse than what we’re going through right now — a nation that’s overcome war and depression, that has been made more perfect in our struggle for individual rights and individual freedoms.

Wonderful sentiment isn’t it? Of course, all this from a guy that said that if the Republicans “bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” This from a guy that said that his supporters should get in the faces of those that disagree with him.

We might also remember in the 2008 contest when Cincinnati radio talker Bill Cunningham opened a John McCain rally by using all three of Obama’s names, an action the left claimed was somehow “racist.” McCain foolishly ran out and repudiated the talk radio host’s use of “Barack Hussein Obama,” and Obama’s campaign praised McCain’s actions as an “attempt to keep it respectful and focused on issues.”

In 2008 Obama was all about being “respectful,” apparently.

But in just the last week alone we’ve seen one calumny after another heaped on Obama’s political opponents by his own vice president and other Obama surrogates. Name calling, hateful rants, allusions to “war” and killing Republicans have been common from Obama and his supporters. And the Old Media has been practically silent on the vaunted “new tone.”

Additionally, what do we get from the national scold? A wave of the hand and a warning that we should not be so worried about Washington’s “Kabuki Theater.” Obama Press Secretary Jay Carney dismissed the disrespectful, violent rhetoric we’ve seen coming from Obama’s supporters saying that, heck, we can’t hold Obama to what others say… right?

But this doesn’t square with Obama’s constant refrain that we need “civility” in our political discourse. For the last four years Obama and his handmaidens in the Old Media have attacked everyone on the right that could be seen in any way as uttering something that might be construed as harsh political rhetoric.

While Obama pretends that he’s interested in “respectful” political discourse we’ve seen a parade of Democrats indulging every manner of disrespectful political speech against Tea Partiers and Republicans. Just in the last few weeks we’ve the following:

• Vice President Biden saying that Republicans and Tea Partiers are “barbarians.”
• Teamsters President Hoffa Says Republicans are “sons a bitches” that should be “taken out.”
• Democrat Andre Carson Says Tea Partiers and Republicans want to start “lynching African Americans.”
• Democrat Maxine Waters says Tea Partiers can “go straight to hell.”
• Vice President Biden calls conservatives “terrorists.”

As I said, this is only a few recent examples. There have been many, many more, all upon which Obama has remained silent. But while Obama may be silent, his hypocrisy and that of his left-wing, Democrat cohorts is deafening.

If it’s possible to wear out your welcome in politics, you can wear out your welcome mat, too.

Sarah Palin’s protracted flirtations with a presidential run took her to Iowa this weekend. She attacked President Obama, took at shot at what she called the “permanent political class,” and even outlined a tax plan she said was designed to revive American hiring.

She even did what every politician does — profess not to care about what polls say — with a Palin twist:

“Polls — nah. They’re for strippers and cross-country skiers,” she said.

But Palin did not declare a candidacy, of course. She didn’t rule it out, either — but that part has less potential relevance as the Republican field evolves without her.

In a Fox News poll taken last week, a startling 72 percent of Republicans said they don’t want Palin to run for president. Among self-described conservatives, 71 percent say they don’t want a Palin candidacy in 2012; that figure is 62 percent among those who consider themselves tea partiers.

Has she worn out the welcome mat? When she resigned as Governor of Alaska, most of her supporters, including me, thought that this would be a setup to repair her media trashed reputation in advance of a presidential run. But, here we are, a little over one year from the general election, and near to when one must declare for the South Carolina primary, and no announcement. As I’ve tweeted multiple times, it’s well past time for her to sh*t or get off the pot. She’s spent so much time attempting to tweak the media’s noses, playing with them as a cat plays with a mouse, playing the “will she or won’t she game”, that she has seemingly forgotten that there are people who support her and just Want To Know.

Her time for jumping in was back during the Spring. We’re now in September, and Palin is still playing the game, leaving her supporters hung out to dry, hence the Fox News poll mentioned above. It was fun watching her play the media like a violin, but, alas, it has ended up hurting her chances. Consider Mitt Romney: you knew from the moment the 2008 elections were over that Mitt was planning to run in 2012. What’s Palin doing? Anybody? In politics, timing is everything. Personally, I think she’s waited too damned long.

What do you think? Has her time to announce come and pass?

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.