Commenters at National Review are sick and tired of Sarah Palin. It’s about time. I saw through her from day one, but apparently it took others four years.
So here are some comments in response to Sarah Palin’s suggestion that you should vote for Newt in order to “annoy a liberal”:
* * *
I tried hard to give this woman the benefit of the doubt. Despite the fact she is at best an average mind, I thought she was shrewd. Going from nothing to national political figure requires a certain degree of cleverness. Now, I wonder if it was just serendipity. Her recent babbling about Newt Gingrich representing the rank and file conservative suggests she has no clue about any of this.
* * *
With all due respect to former Governor Palin, but isn't the purpose of a primary to choose the best candidate for the general election? What does "annoying" people have to do with a primary vote?
By the way, Senator Christine O'Donnell and Senator Sharron Angle say hi !
* * *
If she were an organ she would be the appendix.
* * *
Yeah, it's really going to annoy a liberal when Republicans vote for a progressive who spews the rhetoric of a right wing ideologue. The longer this process goes on the more convinced I am that a Gingrich nomination exponentially increases the likelihood of an Obama victory in 2012.
* * *
Defeating President Obama will annoy a liberal a lot more than a vote for Newt.
* * *
From the person who tooks nearly a year to tease out that she wasn't running for President, now she's going to take months to tease out that she endorses Gingrich. The govenor who resigned endorses the congressman who was forced to resign. Just like the womanizer (Cain) who dropped out of the race endorses the womanizer who is in the race.
The problem I have with what Palin is saying is you don't vote for someone as a tactic or to annoy someone else. You vote for them because you want them to win. So the queen of "will she or won't she" won't actually say if she wants Newt to win overall or not.
The people who like Palin, and I was one until recently, are being played in her own game of aggrandizment. She and Newt must be two peas in a pod.
* * *
Do we really need any more evidence about how what sort of person we are dealing with Sarah Palin? Newt and Palin are made for each other, they're both con artists that can easily sucker brain dead conservatives.
A leaders' effectiveness does not derive from how much they annoy the opposition. Believe me, if Palin got the nomination, she would annoy liberals, but they would be licking their chops at a 15 point landslide.
I love how Palin gets this "street cred" that she's tough and doesn't mince words, but she's not even brave enough to make a formal endorsement.
* * *
It won't really annoy liberals. All the Democrats I know in open primary states are voting for Newt themselves. Newt's victories amuse them greatly -- after South Carolina, my inbox was choked with a fake Washington Post page that showed a 'Newt wins South Carolina' headline next to a big photo of Obama laughing.
Even if it DID annoy liberals, though, I don't think that behaving with the same general motivation as a 5-year-old advances the GOP cause or the country.
* * *
Sarah Palin is apparently annoying a lot of people these days. Mrs. Palin please tell me where Gingrich is bucking the establishment. Is that with regard to Medicare reform? Individual mandate, global warming, etc, etc, etc? He now has changed (for the campaign) on a whole host of these issues and says he was wrong but his manner and his demeanor portray expediency, not bucking the establishment. The only establishment Newt is bucking is establishment of consistency.
* * *
Based on the fact that Newt trails by like 14 points to Obama in the swing states, I would think you'd please the liberals by voting for him.
* * *
Recent Comments