The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Palin Helps Romney Win Alaska

Posted on | March 7, 2012 | 125 Comments

WASHINGTON, Pennsylvania
Mitt Romney has a powerful ally in his effort to win the Republican nomination: Sarah Palin, who told a Fox News reporter last night that she voted for Newt Gingrich.

Gingrich got 1,834 votes in the Alaska caucuses, giving the former House Speaker 14.2% of the vote, good for a fourth-place finish behind third-place finisher Ron Paul (3,105 votes, 24%), runner-up Rick Santorum (3,762 votes, 29%) and winner Romney (4,225, 32.6%).

Gingrich also placed fourth Tuesday in caucuses in North Dakota (962 votes, 8.5%) and Idaho (940 votes, 2.1%), and the primaries in Vermont (4,608 votes, 8.1%) and Massachusetts (16,756 votes, 4.6%). Gingrich placed third in Ohio (14.6%), Tennessee (24%), and Oklahoma (27.5%).

Gingrich’s vote total in Alaska was more than four times as large as Romney’s 463-vote margin over Santorum. In Ohio, Gingrich’s third-place total (175,375) was 16.7 times larger than Romney’s 10,508-vote margin over Santorum.

In related news, Texas Gov. Rick Perry — who quit the presidential race Jan. 19 and endorsed Gingrich — was still on the ballot in Ohio, as was former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, who dropped out Jan. 16 and endorsed Romney. Between them, Perry and Huntsman got 13,843 votes in Tuesday’s Ohio primary.

UPDATE: This post seems to have stirred some anger from people who think that my summary of Neutral Objective Facts was intended as a personal disparagement of Sarah Palin.

Of course, I would have enthusiastically supported Governor Palin, had she seen fit to run for president — see my coverage of her Labor Day speech in New Hampshire — but she decided against it. Another source of anger about this post was expressed by my young friend Jamie:

How come you hate Newt so much?

I replied in the comments, but given the rage reaction this post seems to have provoked, I’ll quote my reply here:

I don’t “hate” him, Jamie. But as a presidential candidate, Newt is utterly implausible. There is simply no way in hell a twice-divorced Republican, married to his former mistress — with whom he had an extramarital affair in the midst of the Clinton impeachment scandal — is going to be elected president of the United States.
Not going to happen. Period.
Gingrich’s rhetorical skills are admirable, but his biography makes him unelectable. This is just the reality of politics, and people who would like to ignore Newt’s biography are simply deluded.
It’s not a matter of policy or ideology. I don’t accuse Newt or his supporters of being insufficiently conservative. They are, however, insufficiently realistic about what it takes to succeed in presidential politics, and their admiration for Newt the Great Debater is blinding them to the unavoidable obstacle to Gingrich’s candidacy. Newt is wasting time and money (and his supporters are wasting their votes) on a campaign that was doomed from the outset.
These are, I assert, Neutral Objective Facts. You may dispute the facts, but I guarantee you that Newt Gingrich will not win the GOP nomination.
Not this year. Not ever.

This is my summary of what is, rather than my personal opinion of what ought to be, and I understand that many people wish that Gingrich’s debate skills were sufficient to offset the liabilities of his biography, but they’re not.

It seems that the online world has become a place where we are so accustomed to people expressing opinions that we have become prone to regard simple statements of fact —e.g., “Newt Gingrich will never be elected president, nor nominated by the Republican Party for that office” — as if they were merely opinions, which might be argued out of existence.

Having supported a lot of long-shot underdogs over the years, I recognize why people might vote for a completely hopeless candidate like Newt. But when the hopelessness was so obvious before his campaign ever began, it ill behooves Newt’s supporters to disparage the motives of those who are guilty of no sin more grievous than stating Neutral Objective Facts.


125 Responses to “Palin Helps Romney Win Alaska”

  1. Multimedia Group
    March 7th, 2012 @ 10:16 pm

    Neutral Objective Fact:

    Assume SOME primary voters aren’t that bright and will vote for the sure loser (Newt) in their state when they should have made a more strategic vote and gone for the more likely Not-Romney (Rick).  The reverse is also true. I voted strategically for Newt in GA even though I’m a Santorum guy (went to his rally here in Atlanta, given to his campaign, volunteered for him).

    I voted for Newt because there was zero chance that Rick was going to win GA or even come in second. So voting for Newt helped deny Romney a win here.  I know a lot of Santorum fans that did the same because we can’t stand Romney.But some people in the GOP don’t think strategically so even though, in their state, Newt had no hope, they still voted for him because they bought into the tripe about Rick being a “big government liberal” who hates libertarians, or whatever other nonsense that was being pushed locally by his opponents. They should have been smarter but they weren’t and they ended up giving Romney a win when they could have helped deny him.

    Now, it is true that Newt is probably the most conservative candidate running based on his record in office but he is also highly inconsistent and, as others have said, not likely to pick up the female vote. I personally think it IS possible that Newt could beat Obama and indeed, he might even have a better shot at it than Romney given the history of RINOs consistently losing presidential general elections.  But Newt can’t win the nomination even if he could win the general, so the best Rick supporters can hope for is that Newt drops out soon to help the grassroots gravitate toward the next most conservative candidate, Santorum.

    If that doesn’t happen, the ultimate question will be, can Paul, Santorum, and Gingrich form a coalition in Tampa that prevents Romney from getting the nomination? .

  2. hrh40
    March 7th, 2012 @ 10:46 pm

  3. Adjoran
    March 8th, 2012 @ 12:02 am

     So your position is that Romney is lying when he says he will grant every state an immediate waiver from ObamaCare upon taking office?  And that if Congress passes a repeal of the entire law, he will veto it?

    Is that what you are saying here?

  4. Adjoran
    March 8th, 2012 @ 12:11 am

     Did you read that piece?  Romney is mentioned on the last page of three, with the sole “evidence” that one of his advisers from MA became an Obama adviser on the climate change nonsense.  THAT’S IT. 

    The piece is a good defense of Heartland and indictment of Glieck the faker, but none of that has anything at all to do with Romney.

  5. Adjoran
    March 8th, 2012 @ 12:14 am

     Wow, High-tax Huck, huh?  Interesting  . . .

  6. Adjoran
    March 8th, 2012 @ 12:16 am

     Well, if the Tea Party geniuses hadn’t pushed a completely tone-deaf Joe Miller, they’d be rid of her by now.

  7. Adjoran
    March 8th, 2012 @ 12:17 am

     You should also email the link to Wombat for inclusion in the link round-up.  The software doesn’t always pick up links through Blogger and perhaps other platforms.

  8. Adjoran
    March 8th, 2012 @ 12:20 am

     Him, and Livingston (his close deputy) and how many others?  Of the nearly 300 Republicans Newt served with on the Hill, how many endorse him?

    If he were 1/2 the Sooper Genius he pretends to be, it would be several dozen at least, wouldn’t it?  But only a handful.

    The Past is trying to tell you something, if only you would listen.

  9. Adjoran
    March 8th, 2012 @ 12:43 am

     I don’t disagree at all.  Romney is not a great candidate.  Neither is Santorum or Gingrich.

    What Romney is good at is turning around failing enterprises by cutting costs and making them more efficient.  Right now we don’t need any big ideas, we need someone who can do simple arithmetic.

    We’re spending TRILLIONS we don’t have, and we are going to have to make the sort of cuts which will rock the boat hard.  Neither Gingrich or Santorum has any experience at even funding their own operations without the federal government to do it.

  10. Adjoran
    March 8th, 2012 @ 12:45 am

     In Michigan, he wasn’t appealing to Democrats to vote for him because they support him, or will vote for him in November.  He invited them to help derail Romney, just as Kos and other leftists were doing.  I’ve seen nothing to demonstrate the Democrats who voted in Ohio were anything other than the same sort.

  11. Adjoran
    March 8th, 2012 @ 12:46 am

     It was Republican voters in that County, but the only reason they “put him over” is their votes came in last, as usual.  Actually all the polls closed at the same time, so no one area “put him over” in reality, did it?

  12. Adjoran
    March 8th, 2012 @ 12:51 am

     Once again, WHO is forcing anything on anybody?  WHICH voters were intimidated?  Our process is the most open and democratic nomination process in the entire world, we even reserve fewer seats for officeholders and bigwigs in the Party than the Democrats do.

    Who are the “THEY” you keep referring to?  Are they using mass hypnosis?

    The Bilderbergers?  The Illuminati?  WHO ARE THEY?

  13. Adjoran
    March 8th, 2012 @ 12:54 am

     Yeah, she retained Plausible Deniability on the endorsement, but it’s been all but.  Of course, she voted for Huckabee, too, and supported the very ethics law that screwed her out of office.

    It’s not like her every decision has been correct, is it?

  14. Adjoran
    March 8th, 2012 @ 1:09 am

     Given that Santorum and Gingrich both think they are the best candidate, the only possible deal they could strike in Tampa would be a 1-2 ticket.  But that presupposes they have a majority between them (Paul delegates aren’t likely to cooperate), a huge leap of imagination.  The way the delegates are splitting now, Romney will win a majority with relative ease.

    The ONLY chance for a Not Romney candidate is Santorum – because he is the one who can compete with Romney all over the country, and has the greater support and delegates – to get into a head-to-head race with Mitt.  Even that would require Santorum to nearly double his vote share in the remaining primaries, and Romney’s to get cut by nearly half, a large proposition, but still a chance.

    Look at the remaining states, their rules for delegates, and be realistic.  A prolonged war of attrition will be won by Romney.  You have to believe he would suddenly collapse for the outcome to be otherwise with Gingrich staying in.  This isn’t football and there will be no “Hail Mary” play at the end to win.

    Either Santorum wises up and takes out Gingrich now in Alabama and Mississippi, destroying any fanciful idea Newt could ever win and forcing him out, or Romney wins a long but inevitable delegate war. 

    There will be no brokered convention – that’s just stupid to assume or even give a 5% chance of happening.  No one is going to keep giving money to Gingrich and Santorum as their practical chances to win disappear, which will have the effect of increasing Romney’s edge.

    The most a prolonged three-way (sorry Paul fans) race could possibly accomplish is weaken Romney so he loses to Obama and the supporters of Rick and Newt get to say “I told you so!”  Great plan, guys – let Obama finish killing America for your sour grapes. 

  15. K-Bob
    March 8th, 2012 @ 1:57 am

    You’re absolutely right. That’s exactly why I can’t get on board the surrender-to-the-statism Romney train.

  16. K-Bob
    March 8th, 2012 @ 2:49 am

    Oh, that’s just probably a misconception. He’d want you to grab your ankles all right, but only so he could more easily bury your head in the sand. <emoticon>

  17. ThePaganTemple
    March 8th, 2012 @ 9:52 am

     Everybody makes mistakes, including your Mittens, who’s made more, way more, than his fair share of them. As for voting for Huckabee, who else was there? At first I was for Giuliani, just because of the image of “America’s Mayor” stepping up to the plate. Then, after I learned about Fred Thompson, I became a Thompson fanatic. But by the time he fizzled out, what was left? By that point I supported Huckabee too.

    Now I stand firmly with Newt. The message of Palin’s support is clear. She more than anyone knows how best to stick it to the establishment.

  18. Nomination Excitations: Newt At The Crossroads « The Camp Of The Saints
    March 8th, 2012 @ 9:55 am

    […] a comment on one of his own postings, in response to friend’s pro-Newt comments, Stacy McCain makes the practical case against Newton Leroy staying in the race: I don’t "hate" him, Jamie. But as a presidential candidate, Newt is utterly […]

  19. ThePaganTemple
    March 8th, 2012 @ 9:56 am

     If Romney doesn’t have enough delegates to win by the time of the convention, and Paul doesn’t have enough to release to him, and Santorum and Gingrich refuse to release their delegates to him, then there could be a brokered convention. However, I think by that time Santorum will probably release his delegates, giving Romney the win.

    But, if Newt wins big in Alabama and Mississipi, and especially if he goes on to win Texas, that might make a lot of people think things through a little more clearly, like I already have in anticipation of the Kentucky Primary.

  20. ThePaganTemple
    March 8th, 2012 @ 10:20 am

     THEY are the ones, the middle aged white Republican establishment RINOs who forced Palin out, and anybody else they thought actually meant what they said about reducing the size of government. They don’t mind Mitt talking about reducing the size of the “fedala govament” as they assume he’s either talking shit, or about China.

  21. ThePaganTemple
    March 8th, 2012 @ 10:25 am

    How strategic are you going to be if Rick does get the nomination and you realize he’s pissed off and destroyed his chances with independent voters, especially independent women voters? It’s one thing to not act like a RINO just to get their support. It’s something else all together to piss directly in their faces and in the meantime alienate federalists and fiscons in your own party.

  22. ThePaganTemple
    March 8th, 2012 @ 2:11 pm


    Never mind what the past is trying to tell me, it might be telling me something different than what you think it is. Again, why does J C Watts support him? And the number in total of House members who support him is eleven, by the way. Too bad he doesn’t have Romney’s money, maybe he could rent a few dozen more, huh?

  23. ThePaganTemple
    March 8th, 2012 @ 4:22 pm

     Okay Adj, here’s a question for you. Who could the Alaska Republicans have nominated besides Murkowski that she would have been satisfied with and not run against as an independent? How is it that Miller is tone deaf? Other than by refusing to listen to the Murkowski clique when they told him not to run against her, that is.

  24. ThePaganTemple
    March 8th, 2012 @ 4:27 pm

     So wait just a minute. Are you seriously saying that Newt Gingrich has no experience in cutting spending, in balancing budgets, and in helping to achieve projected surpluses? That he has zero experience in achieving government reform, in reforming entitlements?

  25. Mike
    March 9th, 2012 @ 10:48 pm

    Here’s your problem–Mitt’s a pussy, in the mold of John McCain.  He won’t make a fight of this. He’ll milktoast along, under the pretense that we’re all gentlemen here, and that jumped up affirmative  action quota baby will laugh and continue the way he has been. Mitt’s tough when, as in the Republican primaries, there will be no adverse comment from the Domestic Enemy press about his toughness.

    That goes away the very minute he gains the nomination. He’s a trimmer, a compromiser, and you will see a repeat of the 2008 campaign when John McCain treated as an equal a twisted little America-hater, who is by no means the equal of a man.

    You’re really going to hate what happens when Mitt Romney gains the nomination.