... There is no way that someone whose biggest issues in this cycle have been: combating “crony capitalism,” promoting “life,” beating Obama and overturning Obamacare, could possibly really favor the guy who got paid $1.6 million by Freddie Mac to be an “historian,” has zero chance to win the election, and had been in favor of a federal healthcare mandate for twenty years, especially when Mr. Pro-life (with a special needs child, no less) Rick Santorum is still viably in the race.
It just makes absolutely no sense.
This brings me to my most important and surely controversial point regarding Palin’s latest attempt to endorse Newt without actually saying the magic words. Could someone please tell me what her personal incentive is for President Obama to be defeated?
I would suggest that there is absolutely none. If Romney beats Obama she is immediately irrelevant.
Her entire purpose at this point is to throw bombs at a liberal President with whom she is obviously linked through her 2008 VP run. Not only would there be no one left in power for her to be the brunette Ann Coulter against, but her chapter of American history also becomes instantly ancient. Even worse than that, unless she decides to go completely rogue and humiliate herself by being Romney’s primary opponent in 2016, she would have no, even theoretical, next political act until 2020 at the very earliest.
That will not be nearly enough to sustain her career as a commentator/speaker/author at anything near its current levels. So the only logical explanation for Palin’s bizarre “endorsement” of Gingrich is that she knows that he can’t win and that she is using him to create this false narrative of an evil “establishment” keeping the noble Tea Party down (explain to me again how Newt is remotely “Tea Party”?), like they somehow did in those Palin-induced Senate losses in Delaware and Nevada in 2010.
I don’t know if she really thinks Newt can win the nomination (which would obviously help her in both the short and long runs), but she clearly sees no downside to creating as much damage to Romney as possible. This whole effort is nothing more than a branding/career move for Sarah Palin.
At one point she might have deserved the benefit of the doubt that she may just be "misguided," but her clearly cynical presidential "tease" last year ended any ambiguity about her true motives now.
That is what makes this whole thing so incredibly ironic. In so vehemently questioning the credibility of the “establishment,” she has revealed that she has a massive conflict of interest herself and should no longer be trusted on the issue of this presidential primary.READ THE WHOLE THING. NOW.
BY DEFENDING A DISGRACED SERIAL ADULTERER AND CAREER POLITICIAN AND LOBBYIST, PALIN HAS PERMANENTLY DAMAGED HER BRAND.
2 comments:
Very good analysis from John Ziegler.
YUP
Post a Comment