S.E. Cupp article link:
"Newt's Doomed Crusade - The quixotic Gingrich campaign for the White House could sink the conservative movement"

Does Sarah really believe the ugly Beltway Insider named Newt Gingrich, who grafted 1.8 Million via Fannie and Freddie, is an outsider?"

------------------

Word Police sez the word is GRIFT, not graft. I think Sarah Palin learned how to grift from Newt years ago, and she's been an apt pupil: her SarahPAC...flying her family all over Alaska and the country on AK taxpayers' dime, to events they weren't invited to...billing the AK taxpayers to live in her own home instead of the Governor's Mansion..."forgetting" to declare using state vehicles for personal use...not paying property taxes on structures on land they owned...too many others to list here.

External Link 

If Ronald Reagan were running in this election, we'd be pilloring him for sunny optimism while the country drives off the cliff. As much as I love Reagan, shining city on the hill rhetoric would make him sound very unserious in today's climate. Gingrich strikes me as the less sunny person who can make clear just how bad things will be if we don't reverse course on entitlement programs and reduce the deficit. Reagan never had the temerament to instill fear of very serious consequences in the absence of serious adjustments. I'm not sure why distinguishing Newt from RR is a criticism these days.

Good point, Luis. I think that points out that there are several factors in play.

I take it as axiomatic that Newt Gingrich has ticked off a lot of people, particularly the usual RINOs who want to protect their life-long visage of being The Nice People.

But the ugly and destructive culture or “consensus” that exists in Washington DC — among both parties — is something that resists change and reform. I really don’t think it’s any more complicated than the fact that nearly all these people have been using government as a giant bribery machine and as a way to consolidate their vision of government supremacy. (After all, if you’re smarter and care more, why shouldn’t government be supreme?)

And no one likes to admit that they have been, in effect, a blood-sucking leach on our republic for most of their working years (and we certainly have the debt, the stifling bureaucracy, and the losses of freedom to prove it). And such a mindset will not suffer a non-team player such as Newt. And as so many have said (and gladly admitted), most of those in office don’t support him.

Any true reformer threatens their flattering self-image. So, sort of in a replay of The Wicker Man, the groupthink establishment must snuff out the heretic in order to maintain and ratify their image as The Nice People. And whatever Newt is, he’s hardly the status quo man or else the status quo would be welcoming him with open arms.

That also explains many of the columnists and commentators who gain their bread-and-butter from rubbing elbows with this clan.

But it’s certainly true that not all people who dislike Gingrich with a passion are part of “the establishment.” For instance, I don’t know what’s going on with Ann Coulter. Did Newt run over her cat with a car? I mean, I can see her hating Newt because of a personality conflict or something. But it seems so unlike her to take her hatred of someone and try to amplify it by supporting a liberal such as Romney. (And, as Michael Reagan pointed out, this guy Romney voted against Reagan — twice — and voted for Carter and Mondale. He’s governed and acted like a liberal.)

As for Drudge, someone told me he is a good friend of Coulter.

But right now, the primary voters of these United States share a different opinion. And this rush to slander Newt (it’s so ironic that Coulter wrote of book of the same name) is an attempt to manipulate that public. And I have no problem with someone hating Newt’s guts. But they should hate him for honest reasons.

But what we have now are so obviously ginned up or completely fabricated charges. It’s an attempt at character assassination, not presidential nominee deliberation. Many of the NRO articles amount to little more than “I don’t like Newt…he’s a bad man” and are so laughingly devoid of actual content that many readers have pointed this out.

Lorraine she said the other day before Rush said anything to watch who they try to slam in Florida and vote for them, they are the ones the establishment are afraid of on both sides of the isle. She is well ahead of them all if you actualy listen to what she is saying and not someone who doesn't like her very much for the same reason they don't like him. Because she is a reformer just like him and they have both been through the ringer of the establishment and are still standing. And the sleeping giant has awakened and we now have social networking and can bypass the lame stream media.

What on earth does this even mean?

All these years, National Review has been saying how smart and good for conservatism Newt Gingrich is. Amazing to hear people published at NR now saying that Gingrich has been horrible for conservatism and was an utter failure when he was Speaker. Doesn't give a lot of confidence about NR's current ideas on who is smart and good for conservatism.

Why isn't NR offended by the slander on Newt Gingrich that Byron York exposed long ago and just published on again this week? It's one thing to be for or against a candidate and another thing to ask questions. But, when an issue has been clearly settled, it's appalling to let lies fly again with impunity.

External Link 

gotta admit. becoming more anti-Newt every day. the guy is creepy people.

This is sad. It's sad because I used to be a big Palin supporter. She's lost all credibility with me now after her refusal to believe the truth about Newt.

If she had vetted Newt herself, she would have realized LONG ago that the Newt she thinks she knows is not the real Newt.