“Palin: Christie got his ‘panties in a wad’ after SC”:
Sarah Palin, in a pre-recorded interview to air on Fox Business Network tonight, says Chris Christie made a “rookie mistake” by calling Newt Gingrich an “embarassment” to the party, adding that the New Jersey governor got his “panties in a wad” when his favored candidate, Mitt Romney, lost the South Carolina primary.
“I do care to take him to task — poor Chris,” Palin said in an interview to air tonight at 10 p.m. eastern time on Fox Business. “This was a rookie mistake. He played right into the media’s hands. Here’s a host that asked Chris, ‘Does Newt embarrass the party.’ I think he asked him twice, and there Chris played right into it and spewed that about Newt embarrassing the party. Sometimes if your candidate loses in just one step along this path, as was the case when Romney lost to Newt the other night and of course, Romney is Chris Christie’s guy, you kind of get your panties in a wad and you may say things that you regret later. And I think that that’s what Chris Christie did.
[…]
“His response to what the media was asking him was reflective of a lack of self-discipline.”
Now, naturally Palin is aware that the Romney campaign — along with the GOP Establishment (but I repeat myself, and besides, there’s no such thing as a Republican establishment, unless you phrase it the “Establishment,” to signal your dubiousness about just such a conspiratorial-sounding cabal) — has leveled against Gingrich the claim the he is erratic and “lacks discipline,” a claim that may in fact be true.
But what Palin shows here is how easy it is to take an action, or frame a comment, in just such a way to make the same kind of claim against those leveling the indictment.
Palin continued:
I’ve learned my lessons all along the way, too, and not responding, not playing into the media’s hands when they’re trying to get you to say something like is this candidate an embarrassment to your party?”
[…]
“I think if Chris were asked about some of his past actions, taking a state helicopter to his kid’s baseball game, some people may say, well, that sort of embarrassed your party, Chris. And he would then be on the receiving end of a comment that maybe he wished that somebody kept as an inside thought and not blasting that to the rest of the nation. He’s been in office a year or two is all, and he’ll learn that the media goad you. They want you to say things like that in order to boost ratings and make it more of a reality show-type scenario that we’re watching in the GOP primary. And a comment like that just kind of played right on into that narrative.”
[…]
“He just produced an ad for the Democrats. If Newt is the nominee, he just handed them free this negative PR ad that they’re going to incorporate into their negative scenario against somebody who came out there against HillaryCare back in his day, who came out balancing budgets, working with a Democrat governor, who came out cutting taxes and trying to rein in government growth in order to put the country on the right track back then, and has intentions of doing that today.”
Jesus, what an uneducated, unnuanced whore.
Good thing we didn’t have to put up with her twangy talk about the need for energy independence, or the dangers of IPAB, or the destructiveness of crony capitalism, or the socialist governing philosophy of Barack Obama and his progressive enablers. Otherwise this primary season would have been, like, unbearably unhelpful.
Jersey trash was also a huge whore for Mike Castle where Palin endorsed his opponent
so this isn’t the first time those two have gotten sideways in a primary
Oh, that Sarah – such a kidder! Wouldn’t want someone so unserious like that as a choice.
leigh, in 5,4,3 . . .
And of course Palin’s calling out Christie’s lack of discipline in calling out Gingrich’s lack of discipline will itself be interpreted as indicative of lack of discipline. So here we are back on third base again when all we want to know is who’s on first.
Sarah isn’t running, so discipline is not her concern. Damaging Christie is.
Is Palin suggesting that Christie is a cross-dresser?
I have been giving some thought as to what alternative phrase/taxonomy for “establishment” would actually work here, as I do take The Establishment’s point: there is no central, controlling group that could be labeled as such. Instead, we have a sort of groupthink that has set in amongst the kingmakers/shot-callers that have been around the Party for a long time.
Maybe “thought-leaders” or “opinion-leaders”? I bet we could get away with those.
What do you call a bunch of lemmings? A herd? A flock? A murder? Maybe one of those.
I’ve got it: a “sniff” of Republicans. Just the right amount of scorn and nose-turn-uppedness, in my opinion.
leigh (#6):
As long as there aren’t moonlight strolls on the beach with his paramour ending in broken legs, I think we’re cool.
heh.
Well, in fairness, Christie’s concern, given that he’s not running, seems to be damaging Gingrich.
Cabal?
Syndicate?
There is a book “Called Our Kind of People: Inside America’s Black Upper Class” by Lawrence Otis Graham that could easily be applied to the Establicons.
There is much overlap with belonging to the “right” clubs, going to the “right schools”, &c, that we hear batted around by the Republican Upper Class.
Anyway, the book referenced is a fascinating look at society and its tiers of influence in politics and business.
How about a “suicide” of Republicans?
leigh (#13):
What’s the “paper bag test” for Establicons?
#14 – ding, ding, ding! Winnah!
Well, in fairness, Christie’s concern, given that he’s not running, seems to be damaging Gingrich.
Oh, Christie’s running alright. He has something to lose by not backing the Establishment candidate.
Sarah. . . not so much.
In that case, we’re back to C. Wright Mills.
Seems to me that worrying about what you have to lose is no small part of our current dilemna.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/289051/hour-newt-editors
Strange that, given all of the noted negatives of Romney, coupled with his critical SC defeats at the hands of Gingrich and Santorum, the editors do not even entertain the possibility that it is Romney who should drop out so that the voters may make a clear choice between Gingrich and Santorum.
Rather than establishment, perhaps we could call them gravy train-ers.
Palinization, the test run.
From geoff’s linked article:
Newt’s been
Borked!err…Palined!err… Gingriched!I know! Cosa ReNostra.
Maybe she could get some voice lessons from Meryl Streep.
Well then god bless her even more.
OT: Here’s some more detail from those stimulus memos. Found in a de Rugby post at the Corner.
OT the second: Another de Rugby post worth a look today.
And, with that, it’s time for me to get back to work. Stupid work.
FWIW, I’d rather have a POTUS that wants an open marriage than a POTUS that wants open borders…..
Well then god bless her even more.
Theocon!
FWIW, I’d rather have a POTUS that wants an open marriage than a POTUS that wants open borders…..
With Newt, you get both!
#29: Heh.
dicentra (#31):
Coworkers looking at me funny for the nose snort I just emitted.
Well-played.
Of course there is a Republican establishment. It consists of pundits like Coulter, Will, and Krauthammer, operatives/consultents like Rove, federal elected officials like McConnel, Ryan, Issa, and McCain, state officials like Govs. Snyder and Walker, retired elected officials like Cheney, and academics and appointed officials like Rice.
What it is not is a monolithic bloc in lockstep. Like the base it is riven with faction, with different people holding up different beliefs on what needs to be done to get to the vague goal (vague because agreeing on details is hard) of the Republican party – if even anyone knows what teh goal actually is. Some people are more passionate about a single issue, others give support to a broad range of issues, but are not passionate. Influence of the different players grows and ebbs with the times and circumstances.
Just like the base of the party the establishment is unified by being “the establishment”, but not by too much else.
Such are my observations.
#29: FWIW I just want a POTUS. Having a messiah is proving to be a little too exciting for my tastes.
And I should read the entire thread before commenting, because #7 zamoose said it in fewer words.
Of course there is a Republican establishment. It consists of pundits like Coulter, Will, and Krauthammer, operatives/consultents like Rove, federal elected officials like McConnell, Ryan, Issa, and McCain, state officials like Govs. Snyder and Walker, retired elected officials like Cheney, and academics and appointed officials like Rice.
I’d exclude the punditry, if for no other reason than they have no actual power. They might align themselves with the GOP establishment, but they’re not a part of it. At most, they’re sycophants; at minimum, voices in the wind.
But the power brokers in the RNC, the organizations that raise money to reelect incumbents, and the other revolving-door types who are in and out of elected office? Those who actually CAN make back-room deals?
Definitely.
dicentra – they have persuasive power. Sometimes that can be important.
And the backroom people? I’ve mentioned them before. You find a lot of them down at the state level. Some of them are known for the amount of cash they can raise and others for the awesome power they have to get volunteers to turn out, and others because their endorsement carries so much wait in the state party that they can swing undecided delegates behind a candidate.
For every super-scary Koch Brothers there are dozens of people with influence who are completely unknown and are much more important to any candidate. Politics can be a very weird game at times.
BTW – the RNC isn’t that important. This game is won at the state level, state by state, the state parties are where the power is. Which may be why The Establishment is so fractured – if you actually want power, you have to have a base in a state party (or in some states a local party will effectively dominate the state party so you have to have your base there).
Well then god bless her even more.
My thoughts exactly. You didn’t think I was disagreeing did you?
The establishment is the party machine that is concerned only with party propagation. Members of the establishment are easily identified by their privileging pragmatism and electability over principle.
In my view, the fact that there is an establishment only became an issue in 2006, when the republican base revolted against the establishment republican congress, which morphed into the TEA Party movement.
These days the left is still firmly committed to the Dem establishment, while the republican base are in full revolt against what the republican establishment denies even exists.
It’s quite the pickle.
#41: “It’s quite the pickle.”
It may even be a conundrum.
Heh.
I do love Sarah Palin. She is more clever than people give her credit for. At times she can be subtle.
As for the “Establishment”, I think the best dividing line I’ve seen drawn is that the Establishmentarians are the ones who want to continue on the path of the last 60 years, fighting a rear-guard action to slightly moderate democrats excess and fiddle with their margins.
The “outsiders” are the ones who are demanding a fundemental reform of the whole approach, in one way or another depending, but demanding that the bastards fight or else die trying.
Nope. Not unless and until your avatar switches to something in the electric yellow family.
Christie better be damn careful hitting other Republicans.
He is indeed new to that. A spat here or there but he hasn’t really gone internecine at the national level.
That guy is actually quite a squish. Conservatives love him and don’t care because he eviscerates democrats and public unions. He starts turning that on conservative figures I think he could be in for a suprise.
God bless the Romneybots, they’re going to sink any chances Mitt has with their tone deafness and their ad-hominems.
Conservatives love him and don’t care because he eviscerates democrats and public unions.
Sort of like Ann Coulter.
Anyone seen an advance copy of the speech anywhere yet? Lots of BS coming, it’d be nice to have some time pick out the most ridiculous lies.
Entropy:
Rabid Willard supporters remind me of Yankees fans/ They have a deep-down belief that they’re entitled to this win and so why won’t everyone just shut up and let them have their turn so that everything is right and proper in the world? Their chosen candidate’s lack of true beliefs means they have little to rally around on his front, so they turn to “SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP YOU IMMODERATE ILLITERATE FOOLS” at the slightest provocation.
I mean, he may have his good points, but “believe in Mitt” is something I don’t think anyone can say with a straight face.
Sarah
Thanks for the visual of Christie in sumo gear…
his butt must not have had breakfast, because it seems to have eaten a beach towel.
Beat Obama!
Woo Hoo!
Geez. Maybe we should rerun McCain
McCain/Romney 2012!
Drinking word for the speech is the same as the grade “Fair”.
dicentra – they have persuasive power. Sometimes that can be important.
George Will and Ann Coulter are more influential to Republicans than Rush or Sean or Glenn?
Not a chance. More starboard-siders listen to and agree with talk radio than to Coulter or Will.
And yet, despite Glenn’s painstaking explication of Newt As Progressive or Rush’s indictment of the Establicans as wanting to take Leviathan’s reins rather than slay it [I have no idea what Hannity is up to], Gingrich is rising in the polls.
People are reacting viscerally rather than thinking things out, as people are wont to do when they’re near panic.
Or they’re just telling the Mittenz People to pound sand, and Gingrich is a useful vessel.
Hannity is being Hannity and providing a forum not only for the candidates, but also for representatives of opposing viewpoints on the Major Questions of the day; in between guest appearances by guests who will be on his TV show, while also promoting what’s going to be on his TV show, that is.
By the way, did you know that Sean Hannity has his own TV show?
Levin’s Ameritopia deals with the schemes and plans of progressive/leftist masterminds who are consistently running from the past, emphasizing a distant Utopian future, and offering various “blueprints” to get us there. The future starts today!
And on cue, Obama will tout his “blueprint” for jobs (increase the public sector by taking ever more from the private sector), energy independence (through things like Solydra, where government picks the ways our energy is to be produced, and stifles energy production it finds too “dirty,” like natural gas, oil, and coal), and egalitarianism of the most illiberal order (note that Obama’s idea of “fairness,” spreading the wealth, closing the income disparity gap, moving toward and equality of outcome; and his idea of “responsibility”, in which the industrious and successful are told they must pay their ever-increasing “fair share,” which share is then redistributed to those the government has been able to force into dependence — are one and the same impulse. Radical egalitarianism, as Hayek pointed out, is the enemy of liberty).
One would think that had Obama this glorious blueprint, he would have maybe trotted it out 3 years ago. But hey. Golf, right?
The Murky-NoLabels Bipartisanship.
By the way, did you know that Sean Hannity has his own TV show?
You sound like a Free Republic refugee.
He is going turn the promises in his Osawatomie speech into policies. The words may be different but the meanings and intent will come from an older Osawatomie.
the Establicans
Now that has a good ring to it. Emphasis on “stab”.
I was thinking you can’t really call them Establi-cons.
At least, not until you imprison them.
Wait, he’s going with four pillars this time? He must have lost one.
Allahu barakbar.
You sound like a Free Republic refugee.
That was my tongue-in-cheek way of admiring his, shall we say, synergy.
Establicans.
If anybody cares here is Byron York’s rundown on the Gingrich House ethics charges.
the York piece is a nice window into Wall Street Romney’s desperation
There is this DailyKos/SEIU poll which show Obama’s approval at 31% among independents. Doing some quick figuring it would seem that they polled a sample of 35% Democrat 34% Independent 31% Republican which way oversamples Democrats to get figures even that good.
…Jesus, what an uneducated, unnuanced whore.
You prefer your whores educated, nuanced?
Jeff’s a big, big fan of Veronica Franco
They’re the ones least likely to give you a disease, or raid your medicine cabinet on the way out.
Or so I hear.
Jeff, I think Obama would claim that the reason he didn’t trot his plan out three years ago is that once he took office the situation was much worse than he imagined. Now that he has saved and created all those jobs, he can reveal his true plan to correct the fundamental mistake God made when He created the universe and make life fair.
Of course, three years and another $4.6T later, our situation is now much worse than any of us imagined it could be after the coronation ceremony in your fabulous city, when promises were made to lower the ocean levels and heal the earth. There were more Americans working when I got out of college 30 years ago than there are today. Something for my daughter who’s a senior in aerospace engineering to look forward to. You want to hear just how many jobs there really are for STEM folks right now? And I thought finishing school right after Carter sucked.