McCain Senior Staffer: Palin ‘One of America’s Most Astounding Morons’;

Endorsement ‘Just Classless’

AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin

by BREITBART NEWS20 Jan 20165300

A former McCain senior adviser blasted former Alaska governor Sarah Palin’s endorsement of GOP frontrunner Donald Trump as “just classless,” telling Politico’s Ben Schreckinger that McCain’s vice presidential running mate is “one of America’s most astounding morons.”

Schreckinger reports:

“It’s just classless,” said a former senior adviser to McCain of the endorsement, predicting it would backfire. “It’s undermining to a key Trump message which is one of competency. What Trump has said is that he’s going to hire the very best people and bring in men of Carl Icahn’s ilk … and he’s appearing with someone who’s viewed as one of America’s most astounding morons.”

Palin’s endorsement of Trump follows a public dispute between the New York real estate tycoon and the Arizona senator whoaccused Trump of “firing up the crazies” after Trump held a campaign rally in Phoenix with supporters who comprise McCain’s own constituents. Trump fired back by dismissing McCain’s status as a war hero and calling out McCain’s disparagement of thousands of Arizonans as “crazies.”

Palin electrified the GOP base after being tapped as McCain’s running mate in 2008. As shown in the documentary “The Undefeated” by Breitbart News Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon, Palin’s addition to the McCain ticket gave the lackluster McCain campaign their only lead in the polls against Barack Obama until the financial crisis conclusively brought any hope of a GOP victory to an end. McCain’s decision to “suspend” his campaignfollowing the financial meltdown sent his poll numbers into a nosedive that they never recovered from.

After the 2008 election, the GOP establishment consultants that comprised McCain’s senior campaign staff quickly turned on Palin, shifting the blame for the campaign’s failure on Palin rather than on the consultants who devised McCain’s strategy to deal with the financial crisis.

In spite of the behavior of McCain’s staffers, Palin has maintained her loyalty to her former running mate, who has sought her help in shoring up his conservative base in Arizona. Palin’s endorsement of McCain’s 2010 Senate re-election allowed him to stave off a conservative primary challenger.

McCain, who is up for re-election again this year, is facing another conservative primary challenger in former Arizona State Senator Kelli Ward, who in a poll last November was beating McCain among Republican voters by a 9-point margin.

As Breitbart’s Michelle Moons reported:

McCain’s actions calling conservatives “whacko birds” and “crazies” was called out among the PAC’s grievances against the over three-decade D.C. insider.

In January 2014 McCain’s own party in Arizona censured the Senator for excessive liberal voting including support for the “Gang of Eight” amnesty plan. At the time of the Arizona State Committeemen meeting censure of the Senator, six of the state’s fifteen county parties had censured McCain.

Palin has not yet endorsed anyone in the Arizona senate race this year.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, 2016 Presidential Race,Sarah Palin, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Sen. Kelli Ward

Meghan McCain: ‘Hard For Me To Watch’ Palin Endorse Trump

by JOHN NOLTE20 Jan 20162,652

Appearing on the Fox Business Network Wednesday, Meghan McCain, daughter of Senator Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), said that it was hard for her to watch former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin endorse Republican frontrunner Donald Trump. “It is hard for me to watch her endorse Donald Trump after what Donald Trump said about my father’s service,” she said.

McCain was referring to Trump’s feud with her father which resulted in Trump hitting back, “He’s not a war hero,” Trump said. “He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren’t captured.”

Meghan McCain also accused Palin for “pandering” in her support of Trump.

The Hill:

“I was shocked simply because I know of her relationship with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). She’s debatably responsible for his political career,” McCain said.

She also chided Palin for “pandering” and distancing herself from conservative values.

“I wish I just saw this a little less like pandering. And doing something that’s popular instead of sticking with your integrity and the kind of conservative beliefs that she has espoused for so long.”

This is a bizarre criticism from the same Meghan McCain who has spent the last 7 years doing everything but praise Palin for her “integrity.” In fact, were it not for herserial-betrayals of Palin to the delight of the mainstream media, Meghan McCain would probably not have a media career. During an appearance on MSNBC, McCain also smeared the late Andrew Breitbart as a reason she does not feel welcome in the Republican Party.

This, despite the fact he invited her to joinBreitbart News as a contributor.

Tell us again about the integrity.

 

Follow John Nolte on Twitter@NolteNC               

Read More Stories About:

Big Journalism, 2016 Presidential Race,Sarah Palin, Senator John McCain

U.S. to Issue Visas to 300,000 Muslim Migrants

Ryan’s Strategy to ‘Keep the American People Safe’ Fails: U.S. to Issue Visas to 300,000 Muslim Migrants

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

by JULIA HAHN20 Jan 2016Washington D.C.4,258

On Wednesday, Senate Democrats successfully and predictably blocked what many conservatives described as Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)’s “Show Vote'”on refugee admissions.

It has been called a show vote because the Ryan plan, even if the President signed it,would still allow the President to bring in an unlimited number of refugees from an unlimited number of countries.

Democrats’ filibuster on the motion to proceed to Ryan’s show vote comes one month after Speaker Ryan sent President Obama a blank check to fund visa issuancesto nearly 300,000 (temporary and permanent) Muslim migrants in the next 12 months alone. Ryan’s decision to fully-fund Obama’s immigration agenda arguably ceded any leverage he may otherwise have had over Democrats and ensured the large-scale migration into America would continue and grow.

Ryan’s bill, known as the American SAFE Act, was blocked by 55-43.

Ryan’s inability to develop a winning strategy suggests he failed at what he has called the “first duty of the government.”  Ryan declared after the SAFE Act’s initial passage in the House:

The first duty of our government is to keep the American people safe. That’s why, today, the House will vote on a plan to pause our Syrian refugee program… If our law enforcement and intelligence community cannot verify that each and every person coming here is not a security threat, then they shouldn’t be allowed in. Right now, the government can’t certify these standards, so this plan pauses the program. It’s a security test—not a religious test. This reflects our values. This reflects our responsibilities. And this is urgent. We cannot and should not wait to act—not when our national security is at stake.

Ryan informed the press that he had “reached out to our Democratic colleagues” in crafting the plan, and touted his acquisition a “veto-proof majority”—which no longer seems relevant since the Senate blocked further movement on the bill.

While Ryan and House Republicans celebrated their supposed political victory— preparing to fully fund Obama’s refugee plans while offering up a show vote—  Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) never seemed concerned. As The Hill reported at the time: “When asked about the prospect of Obama vetoing the legislation, Reid said, ‘Don’t worry, it won’t get passed. Next question?’”

Although many House Republicans seemed convinced that putting forth a toothless bill was a brilliant strategy, many conservatives were not. For instance, Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC)’s office denounced Ryan’s bill as a “show vote” that would “do nothing to cut off the funding for President Barack Obama’s plan to import tens of thousands of Middle Eastern refugees into the U.S.” Jones explained that, “defunding President Obama’s refugee program is the only way to ensure there is an actual halt to a refugee influx.”

Hot Air’s AllahPundit even observed that Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)’s bill was more substantive than Paul Ryan’s: “Another irony: when you compare the House GOP’s bill to what Senate Dems are pushing, it’s the Democratic bill that’s more substantive.”

Mark Levin slammed Ryan’s entire proposal as a fraud. “You’re not securing the homeland, you’re pretending to secure the homeland,” Levin declared, later tweeting out: “Washington fighting over phony policy and want you to think it is serious.”

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) explained that the legislation Ryan pushed through the House “allows the President to continue to bring in as many refugees as he wants from anywhere in the world.”

In a post entitled, “Uh, the House Bill to Pause the Syrian Refugee Program Doesn’t Really Pause the Syrian Refugee Program,” National Review’s Rich Lowry wrote: “It was nice to see the House get a veto-proof majority for its Syrian refugee bill. The problem is, when you get down to it, it doesn’t do anything.”

Given these reactions, it is unsurprising that there was no public momentum behind Ryan’s bill.

But Ryan further ensured there would be no momentum for his strategy— and no pressure on Democrats— by attacking conservatives’ desire to block Muslim immigration. Ryan went to great lengths to ensure America that, as long as he was in charge, no proposals to restrict mass Muslim migration would be tolerated.

Ryan—who, according to recent reports, is “rapidly emerging as Republicans’ anti-Trump” and as a “counterweight to Trump”—made a concerted effort to frame his refugee plan in this light.

Indeed, in early December, Ryan held a press conference publicly condemning the GOP frontrunner’s proposal to temporarily pause Muslim migration. Ryan declared that Trump’s plan “is not conservatism”—even though 65% of all conservative voters think America should allow zero refugees from the Middle East into America, according to Rasmussen. Ryan also adopted the left’s talking point—insisting that there is no need to curb Muslim migration into the United States because “the vast, vast, vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and believe in pluralism, freedom, democracy and individual rights.”

It was never publicly explained by House Republicans how there would be momentum for their strategy if Speaker Ryan was using his pulpit to ensure America that massive Muslim immigration would make America a more free, peaceful, and democratic nation.

Similarly, in a nationally televised interview with Sean Hannity, Ryan ruled out the possibility of curbing Muslim migration, proclaiming: “That’s not who we are”.

Perhaps most noticeably, Ryan helped recruit Nikki Haley to deliver the Republican’s State of the Union rebuttal, in which Haley criticized Trump’s proposal to curb Muslim migration and made the case for functionally unlimited immigration.

By framing Muslim immigration as a huge positive for America, and by putting up a show vote that did not reduce Muslim immigration in any way, the result was that there was no capacity to put any public pressure on Democrats to change their position. One aide Breitbart News spoke with put it this way:

If we wanted to beat Democrats, we needed to highlight the attacks on women carried out by Muslims, highlight the sinister spread of Female Genital Mutilation, highlight the welfare costs, and cultural dangers, the spread of radical Islam inside our borders. Then, we need a proposal to actually pause Muslim immigration. Instead, Paul Ryan celebrated the idea of unlimited Muslim immigration— with all its transformative effects— while putting forward a bill that did nothing. Democrats never broke a sweat. Having Ryan in charge of refugee strategy is like putting the world’s fattest man in charge of your diet plan.

Indeed, Ryan seemed much more eager to collaborate with Democrats. When pressed about his refugee bill, Ryan expressed his desire to cooperate with Democrats— not dissimilar from his $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill, which was praised by Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Reid, and the White House. Ryan said:

This should not be a partisan issue… This should not be about Republicans and Democrats. This should be about keeping America safe… We’re trying to make this bipartisan because we don’t think this should be a Republican or Democrat issue, it should be an American security issue.

Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly warned fifty years ago that the donor-class—or Kingmakers, as she calls them—who control the Republican Party prefer lawmakers and candidates “who would sidestep or suppress the key issues” by compromising with Democrats on the issues that matter to Republican voters.

Schlafly explained that in doing so, the Kingmakers are able to create an ostensible consensus between both Party leaders—and, as a result, voters are denied their ability to choose a party that represents their interests, since both parties represent merely an echo of the other side. Thus, Ryan’s declarations that, “We don’t think this should be a Republican or Democrat issue,” and “We’re trying to make this bipartisan,” and “This should be about keeping America safe” bears striking resemblance to what Schlafly warned about in 1964:

The kingmakers and their propaganda apparatus have launched a series of false slogans designed to mask the failure of their candidates to debate the major issues. Some of these are the following: ‘Politics should stop at the water’s edge.’ ‘We must unite behind our President who has sole power in the field of foreign affairs.’ ‘Foreign policy should be bipartisan.’

In response to today’s failure, Ryan issued a tepid five-sentence response reproaching Senate Democrats’ maneuver as “irresponsible.” While Ryan’s strategy turned out to be unsuccessful, the outcome was not perhaps entirely surprising. In his “bold” Republican agenda released last week, Ryan— who has a two-decade long history of pushing mass immigration — did not include a word about an immigration crackdown. But, considering Ryan’s previous claim that migrants from the third world make the “best Americans,” Ryan himself may regard his own strategy as highly successful.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, Immigration, Nancy Pelosi,Harry Reid, Sean Hannity, Nikki Haley,female genital mutilation, Phyllis Schlafly,Walter Jones, Dianne fFinstein

Celebrities Join ‘Stop Hate Dump Trump’ Anti-Donald Campaign

by DANIEL NUSSBAUM20 Jan 20164,964

Dozens of celebrities and activists have joined a new campaign aimed at derailing the presidential prospects of Republican frontrunner Donald Trump and the “politics of hate and exclusion he represents.”

Michael Moore, Kerry Washington, Rosie O’Donnell, Harry Belafonte, Jane Fonda, Dylan McDermott, Roseann Barr, and Lily Tomlin are among the film and television stars who have pledged to “speak out in every way possible” to prevent Trump from becoming the next President of the United States as part of the new “Stop Hate Dump Trump” campaign.

In a statement on its website, the group says it believes Trump is “a grave threat to democracy, freedom, human rights, equality, and the welfare of our country and all our people.”

“We have witnessed Trump inciting hatred against Muslims, immigrants, women, the disabled,” the campaign’s website reads. “We have seen him evidencing dangerous tendencies that threaten the bedrock of democracy: unleashing a lynch mob mentality against protesters, calling for the expulsion of Muslims from the country, bullying, and fear-mongering.”

“History has shown us what happens when people refuse to stand against hate-filled leaders,” statement continues. “We pledge ourselves to speak out in every way possible against the politics of hate and exclusion he represents.”

Other notable signatories on the campaign include Noam Chomsky, Connie Britton, Rosanna Arquette, Reza Aslan, Ani DiFranco, Danny Glover, and playwright Eve Ensler.

“We are offering Americans a chance to be heard and engage in action, as Trump’s campaign gains momentum even as he increases his hateful and divisive rhetoric,” Ensler said in a statement.

At the time of publication, the campaign had gathered 780 signatures.

The campaign website features a number of examples of what it calls Trump’s “hate,” including statements that are critical of former Secretary of State and Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The group also included Trump’s vow to “blow up” and defeat the Islamic State terror group in its list of hateful comments the candidate has said.

Other celebrities have launched their own anti-Trump campaigns in recent months.

In December, veteran television producer Norman Lear announced that his organization People for the American Way would launch an initiative to combat what he called Trump’s “hate speech and anti-Muslim rhetoric.”

A month earlier, Oscar-winning director Alejandro Inarritu and actor Diego Luna joined other Hispanic cultural leaders in signing a letter similarly condemning Trump’s “hate speech,” which they claimed was causing “physical aggressions against Hispanics.”

The anti-Trump campaign was announced just days before the first-in-the-nation presidential caucus kicks off in Iowa on February 1.

Read More Stories About:

, Donald Trump, Michael Moore, Rosie O'Donnell, Jane Fonda, Kerry Washington, Stop Hate Dump Trump,#StopHateDumpTrump

Ann Coulter: Liberal and Conservative Media Unite Against Trump

by ANN COULTER20 Jan 20165489

We have never had total war against a candidate like we’re seeing with Donald Trump. All elements of national media are uniting to stop him.

Look for a fake Trump scandal to break — probably from a conservative news outlet — right before the Iowa caucus.

A few months ago, an alleged Trump quote from a 1998 People magazine interview was circulating on the Internet, claiming Trump said that if he ever ran for president, he’d run as a Republican because Republican voters are “the dumbest group of voters in the country. They believe anything on Fox News. I could lie and they’d still eat it up.”

I pay a lot for Nexis, and Trump has never said anything remotely resembling this.Snopes.com investigated, too, and also concluded the quote was a fake. But you can probably still find some idiot tweeting it out right now.

Last week, Glenn Beck “retweeted” a post allegedly tweeted by Trump the day after the 2012 election, saying: “I always vote for the winners! Congratulations to My Friend, @BarackObama!”

If that doesn’t sound like Trump, it’s because Trump never said it. Beck’s retweet sure made it look real, but you can check Trump’s Twitter archive.

All the stories about Trump being a fraud keep turning out to be the real frauds. I assume that, like most sentient beings, he’s changed his mind about some things. But the one consistent thread running through his entire life is his love for this country and his fellow Americans.

The attacks on Trump from the “conservative” media calling him a socialist, a Democrat, a flip-flopper, a fake conservative are just name-calling. I notice that the accusers never include examples, not true ones, anyway. Here are some examples of how Trump has always been for Americans first. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a president who likes us more than he likes foreigners — and the rich donors who employ them?

In 1986, Trump saw a TV broadcast with Annabell Hill, whose 67-year-old husband had committed suicide 20 minutes before their family farm was to be auctioned off in a foreclosure sale, hoping the life insurance money would be enough to save the farm. It wasn’t.

Trump immediately called Annabell, promising to save her farm and pledging $20,000 toward the effort. “Last night when he called, my heart went pitter patter,” Annabell told ABC’s “World News Tonight.” “I never talked with a man with that much money before. And he assured me that one day the land would be mine. I thought, after I hung up, ‘This can’t be true, this just can’t be true.'”

As Trump explained to The Atlanta Constitution at the time, “I’ve seen what’s happened to farmers, but I was particularly interested in a lovely woman I saw, Annabell Hill.”

Within a month of Trump’s launching a national campaign with two other businessmen to save Annabell’s farm, they had raised more than $100,000. One of the businessmen, Frank A. Argenbright Jr., said, “That is thanks totally to Mr. Trump and his organization. Most of the money has come from the New York area.”

By Christmas that year, Annabell and her entire family flew to New York to burn the mortgage in the lobby of Trump Towers and have Christmas dinner with the Trump family. The lovely Annabell said, “Well, we have a real celebration not only to celebrate the birth of Jesus but also to celebrate the goodness in men’s hearts.”

Thirty years ago, Trump wasn’t thinking about running for president. And yet, this is how he explained his campaign to save Annabell’s farm, as quoted by The Associated Press: “We give a lot of money to foreign countries that don’t give a damn about us, but we don’t help the American farmers.”

Two years later, Trump was interviewed by Larry King at the 1988 Republican National Convention. Please look up this interview — it’s fabulous.

Two things will be of particular interest. First, watch how Trump keeps circling back to praise Dan Quayle. King doesn’t even ask him about Quayle — a figure of media ridicule at the time because of his Midwest conservatism. It’s Trump who keeps doggedly bringing up Quayle, in order to say, he’s a “very impressive guy” who did “a great job — I don’t mean a good job, I mean a great job.”

Second, Trump expressly rejects King’s characterization of him as an “Eastern Republican,” or a “Rockefeller Republican,” saying the people he does best with are “the taxi drivers and the workers.”

Trump’s business is real estate, and real estate can’t be outsourced. His flag is planted in this country. If America goes down, his empire goes down.

Conservative pundits keep assuring clueless viewers that Trump is not a “real Republican.” They seem not to grasp that most viewers are saying, That’s fantastic! Thanks for reminding me. (I look forward to conservative talk show hosts 20 years hence billing themselves as “Trump Republicans.”)

Looking at what the party has become, I certainly hope he’s not a “real Republican.” I know he’s a real American. Those used to be the same thing.

Follow Ann Coulter on Twitter @AnnCoulter.

COPYRIGHT 2016 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, Big Journalism, 2016 Presidential Race, Donald Trump, Ann Coulter

SOCIALISM AT WORK: France Declares State of Economic Emergency

KENZO TRIBOUILLARD/AFP/Getty Images

by SARKIS ZERONIAN20 Jan 2016329

As investor sentiment plunges across the world, President François Hollande of France has unveiled an economic plan to deal with what he describes as his country’s “state of economic emergency”.

Setting out a new €2 billion (£1.5 billion) job creation plan for France, the socialist leader said the country is facing an “economic and social emergency” as well as an “uncertain economic climate and persistent unemployment”, reports the BBC.

Recently President Hollande said that the social emergency in France, caused by unemployment, was as every bit as serious as the emergency caused by terrorism. In his annual speech to business leaders he reinforced that idea, prioritising his response to it.

“Our country has been faced with structural unemployment for two to three decades,” he said, “and this requires that creating jobs becomes our one and only fight.”

France’s unemployment rate has soared to an 18-year high of 10.6 per cent, against a European Union average of 9.8 per cent and 5.4 per cent in Britain. Facing re-election next year an increasingly desperate President Hollande proposes to pay French employers to hire young unemployed people as a means to restore confidence in his country’s “broken” economic model, one which is marred by low output and stagnant growth.

France’s state of economic emergency was declared at the same time as Germany faces its most difficult start to a year in recent memory, reports The Express. With consumer confidence plummeting, industrial production growth in the EU’s biggest economy has slipped to zero per cent.

Germany and France are the eurozone’s two biggest economies, and two of the six largest economies in the world. Economists have warned that if the French and German economies collapse the ensuing domino effect would bring down the entire eurozone and severely damage the global economy at a time when it is already under considerable stress.

Some are even warning that with the downturn in China a global recession is now more likely than at any time since the 2008 financial crisis.

Follow Sarkis Zeronian on Twitter: Follow @SarkisZ or e-mail to: szeronian@breitbart.com

Read More Stories About:

Breitbart London, Germany, France,Economics, Francois Hollande, 2008 financial crisis, economic crisis

NH Poll: Trump Leads, Cage-Match for Second

Listen To Military Veteran Talk Radio

iHeart.SmythRadio.com

Facebook.com/SmythRadio

 AP

by MIKE FLYNN20 Jan 201663

A new CNN poll of New Hampshire finds Donald Trump still dominating the crowded Republican field, with the support of 36 percent of Republicans in the Granite State, up somewhat from his position last month.

In December, Trump had 32 percent support, four points less than his January score — but well within the 4.8 percent margin of error in the polls.

The real activity, however, is in the race for second. Six candidates are locked in a cage match to secure place and show out of New Hampshire. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is currently second, with 14 percent support, followed closely by Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Jeb Bush each with 10 percent.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) are tied with 6 percent each. Considering the margin of error, all six candidates are within striking distance of finishing second, with Cruz have a slight edge for runner-up.

Rubio, Bush, Kasich and Christie are all pouring millions of dollars into paid advertising in New Hampshire. With the exception of Rubio, all have conducted dozens of campaign events in the state, whose voters put a premium on direct contact with candidates. Cruz has campaigned in the state little, and hasn’t advertised there, but his stronger showing is likely a result of his consistent second place showing in national polls.

Although almost half of Republicans, 43 percent, say they are still deciding whom to support, Trump is widely expected to win New Hampshire, the first primary state to vote this year. The real battle is for the limited number of candidates who can realistically continue their campaign beyond New Hampshire.

Bush, Kasich and Christie has each staked much of their campaign on a strong showing in New Hampshire. Bush can likely continue his campaign, even if he finishes far behind the leader, because of his fundraising edge and perceived strong ties in South Carolina.

If Kasich and Christie fail to finish in the top three, it is hard to imagine their campaigns will have the resources or momentum to continue. After New Hampshire, the Republican primary calendar features a swathe of contests in the South, where neither is expected to poll well.

Marco Rubio faces perhaps the biggest challenge. Rubio is trying to consolidate the support of more mainstream Republicans as the most serious challenger to Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. If he doesn’t finish in the top three however, he will have a difficult time arguing that he has the fortitude for a long campaign.

His campaign has recently been criticized for its light campaigning schedule and use of campaign resources. To date, his campaign’s spending has been second only to Jeb Bush’s campaign. If he can’t translate that spending into a strong finish in either Iowa or New Hampshire, mainstream Republicans will likely look to a different candidate.

In terms of favorability rating, though, Rubio does still have an edge. His net favorable rating, the difference between favorable and unfavorable opinions, among Republicans is +26. Ted Cruz’s rating is almost the same, at +25. Donald Trump’s is +14.

Jeb Bush, by comparison, is upside down, with a net favorable rating of -11.

The poll also asked voters who their second choice would be. Combining the first and second choice results are interesting. Trump still leads with 42 percent, followed by Cruz with 34 percent. Rubio is third with 29 percent, followed by Bush with 20 percent.

The second choice question is important because so many Republican voters say they are still trying to make up their mind. How they make their decision over the next three weeks will determine who gets to live to campaign another day.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, 2016 Presidential Race,New Hampshire, poll, Trump

GLENN BECK, You Do Not Understand Sarah Palin

AP Photo/Mary Altaffer

by JOEL B. POLLAK20 Jan 2016557

The conservative commentariat has imploded in dismay at Sarah Palin’s endorsement of Donald Trump in Iowa on Tuesday.

Fans of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Trump’s main rival in Iowa and beyond, were understandably dismayed.

But the reaction went far beyond that. Some said Palin betrayed her conservative principles by choosing a candidate whose conservatism is shallow at best. And some rehashed the personal attacks that have been a staple of the left.

In fact, Sarah Palin’s endorsement of Trump makes sense, and fits both her politics and her personality.

Yes, she has been the iconic symbol of conservatism and the Tea Party, whereas Trump seemed perfectly happy to go along with Obama and the Clintons until a few years ago.

But just as Palin has never let herself be defined by the Republican Party, she has never felt bound by ideological checklists, either. She is a conservative, but she is anti-establishment first.

Palin became the governor of Alaska in 2005 by running against the establishment of both parties. In 2014, in Wacko Birds: The Fall and Rise of the Tea Party, I noted:

Ironically, though she would soon become a conservative icon, Palin was billed as something of a political centrist. McCain introduced her to the country as “someone who reached across the aisle and asked Republicans, Democrats and independents to serve in government.” She was socially conservative, but had vetoed a bill that would have prevented same-sex partners from enjoying visitation rights in Alaskan hospitals. She was said to share something of McCain’s rebellious streak, and his willingness to confront his own party’s interests as she took on corruption and special interest groups.

In the Obama era, conservatism became the dominant anti-establishment theme of American politics, thanks partly to Palin. However, over time, Palin has found herself increasingly at odds with the conservative establishment itself, parts of which are anti-populist–happy to have her backing, but faintly embarrassed by her and repulsed by her supporters.

(Update: Ted Cruz has made his reputation as an anti-establishment politician, so it would not have been surprising had Palin supported him instead of Trump, simply on ideological grounds. Palin’s reasons for choosing Trump may be more personal than political. But the dismissive reaction of some Cruz supporters to Palin suggests a kind of elitism. Parts of the anti-establishment conservative movement turn out to be their own kind of establishment.)

It is now fashionable, even among some “true conservative” pundits, to bash Palin’s intellect and mock her speech. Trump’s supporters are often treated with the same disdain as Palin’s fans, as if not even their votes are wanted.

Surprisingly, Ross Douthat of the New York Times came closer to understanding the Palin endorsement than many conservatives outside the mainstream media bubble,tweeting: “Seriously, this is who Palin was meant to be. Her neocon + movement phases were opportunism/osmosis. This is closer to where she started.”

That is too harsh: her “opportunism” included resigning from the governorship and turning down several chances to run for office again. And Douthat may be implying, as others have said outright, that what Trump and Palin really have in common is just celebrity.

That would miss the convictions that motivate Palin, and that still attract millions of Americans to her. Regardless, the kernel of truth in Douthat’s tweet is that Palin was, and remains, the leader of a popular resistance to what American politics has become. It is a conservative resistance, but does not always conform to conservative politics.

It is unclear, as of this writing, that Palin’s endorsement will have a significant effect on the Iowa caucuses, where polls had been trending back in Trump’s direction.

What is remarkable is that just days after defending “New York values,” Trump brought Palin–so often the target of New York elites–on board. It confirmed that he intends to build a big coalition–the “big tent” of political lore.

How odd that some conservatives would still prefer to bar the clubhouse door.

 

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, 2016 Presidential Race,Breitbart California, Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz,Iowa, conservatives