Advice to Sarah Palin from an Ardent Admirer re Establishment Republicans and Tea-Partiers re Gingrich and Romney. A Plea to Sarah Palin not to succumb to Newtonian Gingrichism.
Gingrich, not the "Republican Establishment" is the author of his own contemptible behavior.
I take issue with major aspects of your FaceBook
post on January 27, 2012, I'm constrained to make clear that from the time
of your entry onto the national political stage I have been an ardent admirer of
you as a person, as a mother, as a woman, as an entrepreneur, as an American
imbued with an allegiance to the principles of liberty our Founders would have
most admired by virtue of the fact that as a public official in Alaska you put
principle before your own personal economic (and political) well-being in
exposing political corruption (for which uncorrupted allegiance to principle the
voters of Alaska later elected you their Governor), as a candidate for Vice
President in 2008, and (since 2008) as a vocal advocate for
limited-government/strong-defense and recognition that it's America's
Constitution that makes it exceptional in all of human history. I take a
back seat to no one in extolling your admirable qualities and common-sense
judgment. And, I
expressed understanding (rather than condemnation) of your reasoning for your
decision to resign as Governor of Alaska. (Should you have any
doubt my above-assertions of enthusiastic support for you I've previously
expressed, scroll down to the end of this article and view the videos and links
for such prior expressions of support.)
Now, assuming I've precluded any basis upon which you could view my following
criticism as a manifestation of the "Republican Establishment" (of
which I am not, and have never been, a member), it's my hope that my criticism
of the flaws in your reasoning in your January 27, 2012, Facebook post will
inspire introspection on your part. So, here's my effort to do so:
the "Republican Establishment":
did NOT force Newt to sit on the bench with Nancy Pelosi to tout Al Gore's AGW
religion as science;
did NOT force Newt to get into bed with Freddie Mac;
did NOT force Newt to back-stab Bush in 2007 when Bush was seeking support for
the surge in Iraq;
did NOT force Newt to disparage Paul Ryan's deficit-reduction plan as
"right wing social engineering";
did NOT force Newt to issue serially contradictory statements about Libya when
Obama decided to "lead from behind" in Libya;
did NOT force Newt to advocate leftist dogma in attacking Romney regarding Bain.
did NOT force Newt to make class-envy attacks on Romney about his "Swiss
bank account" and his wealth.
did NOT force Newt to smear Romney as "anti-immigrant" rather than
anti-illegal-immigration, for which smear Marc Rubio (not an
"establishment" type) quit properly castigated Newt.
are just a few of the things Newt has done to earn my contempt,
which wasn't easy for him to earn because in 1994 I viewed him as one who had
hit a historic grand slam for limited government. However,
over the years, it slowly dawned on my feeble mind that he is the same kind of Machiavellian
narcissist as is Bill Clinton. I'm surprised you (and Todd) haven't
discerned this also. As the eight points above illustrate, he's willing to
make whatever argument on any given subject that may seem to his clever mind to
be advantageous for him in the moment of the argument. His loyalty to
principles is about as strong as his loyalty to his wives.
Am I an apologist/supporter for Romney? Hardly-- see the video and
photoshop image immediately below. Do I think Romney's flawed positions
make him the unprincipled person I deem Newt to be? No.
So, what is my criticism of your Facebook post blaming the "Republican
Establishment" for "attacking" Newt? I think that not only
the "Republican Establishment" BUT ALSO THE TEA-PARTY supporters OUGHT
to attack the kind of leftist nonsense Newt is willing to spout whenever he
momentarily deems it advantageous for him to do so. Am I a "tea
party" official? No. Have I attended numerous tea-party events,
the two 9-12 events in DeeCee, and Gathering of Eagles events before that?
Yes. But I only claim to be a spokesman for myself.
Do I think it's vital to our country's future that Obama not be reelected?
Absolutely. Does your "Republican Establishment" versus
"the tea party" meme increase or decrease our chances of succeeding in
defeating Obama? I have no doubt that it decreases such chances. So
I hope you'll reevaluate your current "Republican Establishment versus
Tea-Party" strategy before it morphs into a Newtonian affliction.
Would I vote for Gingrich if he were to get the nomination? Of
course. I'd rather suffer under his erraticism than under Obama's
ideological fervor. Would I vote for Romney? Of course. Would
I vote for Santorum? Of course. Would I vote for Ron Paul? Of
course not. (Would I vote for you? Absolutely!)
Jim is a proud descendant of 18th Century criminal exiles from England who swam to the Outer Banks when the British ship taking them to a Georgia penal colony sank in a storm near Cape Hatteras. Having the prescience to prevent their descendants from becoming "TarHeels," they immediately migrated to Virginia, where, within just a few generations they worked their way up into poverty. Jim's grandfather was the first in the family tree to see the distant horizons, but his career was cut short by severe injuries he sustained when a cousin cut down the tree.
After a brief stint in the Amry (ours) following graduation from law school, he began his legal career in the state bureaucracy but was never able to break into the federal bureaucracy. Several years later, he entered the private practice of law and co-founded a small law publishing company. Later, finding the publishing of small laws unstimulating and finding his private practice too private to be lucrative, he began writing political satire/commentary. His greatest vice is taking himself too seriously.
Although he regularly teaches Continuing Legal Education courses to lawyers, he's too-often available through he Rubber Chicken Speakers Bureau to speak on politics, satire, etc., at luncheons, dinners, root canals, funerals, etc. His speaking fees are so outrageously high they border on criminal price-gouging, but as a free-market advocate, he defends his fees on the higher moral ground of charging whatever the traffic will bear. For more information (surely more than one would want or need), go to www.PoliSat.Com.