Image 01 Image 03

Sarah Palin: “If I had to vote in South Carolina in order to keep this thing going I’d vote for Newt”

Sarah Palin: “If I had to vote in South Carolina in order to keep this thing going I’d vote for Newt”

Sarah Palin on Hannity just stated that if she were in South Carolina she would vote for Newt to keep the election from being declared over if Romney wins.

She emphasized that we need answers to questions, and can’t risk October surprises.

I’ll get you the full quote and video when available.

Update: Here’s the quote:  “I I had to vote in South Carolina in order to keep this think going I’d vote for Newt.”

[Note: The title was changed to reflect the exact wording now that I have had a chance to review the video.]


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


This is an endorsement…sorta. Maybe she means of all the candidates we can choose from now. Look forward to seeing the video. I would be happy if she came out for Newt. He is the best conservative who can win which was her criteria. Romney is not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination. I would even say he is further to the left than many a dim. If he wins the nomination, we will truly be snuggered.

StrangernFiction | January 17, 2012 at 9:21 pm

Would it kill Sarah Palin to come out and say anyone but Romney? I guess she really wants to keep the Fox gig.

    I agree. All the coyness is tiresome. She’s had months to look at these candidates. It’s a crucial moment for conservatism and the country. Time to commit.

      andcar in reply to raven. | January 17, 2012 at 11:41 pm

      Seems that her point was precisely that it’s not yet time to commit. Only 2 out of 50 states have yet been able to vote or caucus, both of them advantage-Romney contests, thus giving him the added advantage of momentum. Give the rest of us a chance.

        StrangernFiction in reply to andcar. | January 18, 2012 at 10:26 am

        It is way past time to commit to anyone but Romney. Sorry to be a stickler, but somebody’s got to do it. Sarah Palin is one of the few people that really has the power to make a difference and stick it to the establishment.

    Her position has always been any of the candidates would be immensely superior to Barack Obama. So, why should she shoot directly at the current leader?

    Reagan didn’t say anybody but Nixon in 1968. He refused to declare his candidacy against Nixon until the convention, and he never framed it as anybody but Nixon. He didn’t even say it about Ford in 1976. It’s not a smart political formulation for someone who wants to eventually unite the party.

    Palin has said what is reasonable and true: the longer the contest the better the nominee’s strengths and weaknesses will be revealed. She has supported all the conservatives. Has any other major Republican figure done that?

      raven in reply to T D. | January 18, 2012 at 10:13 am

      Responding to both TD and andcar:

      “Seems that her point was precisely that it’s not yet time to commit. Only 2 out of 50 states have yet been able to vote or caucus, both of them advantage-Romney contests, thus giving him the added advantage of momentum. Give the rest of us a chance.”

      Your argument presupposes a generic race in an unremarkable period of American history. It is neither. And there won’t be “50” primaries and caucuses (at least not 50 that matter). The race may be over in a few weeks.

      So when is the time? After Romney wins SC and rolls into Florida and the entire establishment and media declare “it’s over”? If she’s going to say she’d vote for Gingrich, why not say she supports him and wants him to win because he’s the better candidate? Because she doesn’t think this? Then why say anything? Does she think there is no difference between qualified, quasi, non-committal support for Gingrich now when she has a choice and support for Romney later (in the name of “unity”) when she has no choice? A Romney nomination guarantees another Obama term. If she can’t see this I have little respect for her political acumen or her endorsement.

      “Reagan didn’t say anybody but Nixon in 1968…. He didn’t even say it about Ford in 1976. It’s not a smart political formulation for someone who wants to eventually unite the party.”

      It’s not 1968 or 1976. We’ve had a covertly radical Leftist in office for three years. We’re at a point of grave internal political crisis – facing unheard-of, malicious degradations of our economic freedoms and our constitutional democracy. Four more years might be fatal to our shared notion of America, for America itself. “Smart political formulations” are almost beside the point, unless you mean “smart” in the sense of a grander strategy to beat Obama. Which would be? I’m open to the argument.

        Hi Raven,

        Smart is turning the nation more and more toward conservatism by building up conservatives and their candidates while not alienating conservatives who are supporting or leaning toward Romney (e.g., National Review – no matter how wrong-headed).

        “Anybody but” works against political opponents but not so well against political allies.

        Palin sees the importance of not trashing Romney and alienating his conservative supporters, just as she refuses to trash Ron Paul and his supporters. She points out policy disagreements with Paul in strong terms, but does not get personal. “Anybody but Romney”, like “Anybody but Ron Paul” is a personal attack not a policy attack.

        As for 1968, it was a pretty bad year policy wise for the nation. Not just in terms of the Viet Nam war. Remember who was just ending his presidency in 1968–Lyndon Johnson. Johnson’s Great Society implemented Medicare and Medicaid, the War on Poverty (40 new programs just there), Head Start. The nation was much more liberal. Reagan hadn’t yet wooed the American people back to conservatism from the public popularity of FDR and the New Deal and the Great Society.

          raven in reply to T D. | January 18, 2012 at 3:30 pm

          Appreciate the response but can’t agree we’ve experienced anything like the phenomenon of Barack Obama. Where “liberalism” as you define it was a malady, Leftism is a malevolant scourge, a dedicated effort to collapse and reconfigure American society entirely. All the rules of conduct and premises of political co-existence are dead.

          In short, nothing like 1968. The challenges were considerable then for sure, but of a completely different sort — nothing like this.

          The GOP doesn’t get it — even seems institutionally incapable of comprehension. I thought Palin was different.

          “Unity” won’t take place under Romney in any case. Indeed, a Romney candidacy will shatter and/or demoralize the so-called coalition. This is obvious. I thought Palin also knew this. I thought she was biding time in hope of a candidate to coalesce conservatives.

          Further, I fail to see how endorsing one candidate entails “trashing” others.

          Reagan put himself on the line for Goldwater. He put himself on the line when he challenged an incumbent Gerald Ford (extremely risky undertaking for which he could have been accused of dividing the party). He went the distance in the trenches in 1976 and 1980. Palin seems to want to float above it all. Not good enough.

          Its a time of peril. It’s a Time for Choosing.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | January 17, 2012 at 9:26 pm

Our T.V. was on, but we were away from the set. I thought I heard her say she’d vote for Newt, but I wasn’t sure.

This blog was the first one I checked to see if I heard her say what I thought she said.

Possible game changer?

Wow a Sarah Palin endorsement could be huge, but can Newt over come Newt?

For those who are interested, here is part 1 of the interview, courtesy of Right Scoop:

There’s a courageous leadership stand.

TeaPartyPatriot4ever | January 17, 2012 at 10:27 pm

As a former Sarah Palin fan and avid supporter, I personally lost all respect for Sarah Palin, when she quit her responsbilities to her constituents and supporters, twice no less.. No one can be respected for being a real leader of the people, when they abbandone them, in the heat of the political kitchen.. especially when at this moment in time, she would have been a momumentous alternative to Romney, regardless of what the media would have done to try to destroy her, like they are trying to do to Newt..

As Newt has proven, it makes no difference, as he commanded the debate stage, regardless of how Juan Williams and Bret Bair / Fox News, tried to attack and embarrass Newt.. or like any of the other debate hosts tried to do in the past months.. let alone in the media commentaries, and other mass news outlets, trying to portray Newt as unelectable.

But it hasn’t worked, and will not work, as a real Reagan conservative leader can esaily expose their hypocrisy, and reveal the truth.

With that being, let me say this.. as I have stated before-

Romney’s political rope-a-dope strategy, always lets him off the hook too many times, in not having to answer the tough, in your face, direct core questions.. Romney is nothing more than a book filled with pre-made, ready to order, quips, retorts, and talking points.  Romney is a political coward, and is why he refused to debate Newt one on one, as he knows, Newt would completely wipe the floor with him, as Romney has neither the indepth knowledge, intellect, or expertise, let alone Reagan conservative values and principles, to beat Newt, let alone Obama.. 

Romney sees himself as both slick and smooth as  Bill Clinton, and as liberal as Obama.. He is a political weasel of a politician, let alone a man.

Secondly, Newt is clearly up against the liberal Republican Party establishment apparatus, which includes Fox News, but one in which Newt can aptly and ably handle. What else is new, as Reagan had to deal with the same crony Republican Party RINO apparatus and people.

The problem is always the same thing, as the political agenda of Obama left, or the RINO right, always tries to get in the way of the Truth.

That’s what they have in common against Newt, and the Tea Party Reagan conservatives, which is why the Republican Party apparatus, can easily justify colluding with the far left, so they can ensure the reins of power and control, stay in liberal hands, of either party.

This is why Newt resonates with real Reagan Conservatives, aka, the People, and not the liberal Republican Party RINO establishment of Boehner, McConnell, Cantor, and Romney.

I just hope that the SC conservative Republican voters, come to the Reagan conservative sense, when they vote on Tuesday.. as a vote for Romney, is a vote for Liberalism of either Party, and thus a vote for Obama..

    huskers-for-palin in reply to TeaPartyPatriot4ever. | January 17, 2012 at 10:56 pm

    You DO KNOW the real reasons why Palin left the governorship in Alaska? Do you??? You can stop with melodramatics as well. A simple modicum of research and LISTENING to her would of revealed that.

    If you don’t know, I advise that you read her book “Going Rogue” or watch “The Undefeated”.

    I’m still an avid supporter of Palin. Unlike you, my life does not revolve around other people’s political choices.

    Hi TeaPartyPatriot4ever,

    You have to remember the frame of reference of why Gov. Palin resigned at the time that she did.

    From a public relations standpoint, it didn’t seem to make any sense, as it looked like she was simply abandoning her constituents.

    From a legal standpoint though, it makes all the sense in the world, and teed her up nicely to be able to run for President if she decided to do so this cycle. Here’s why:

    At the time Palin resigned, the timing was such that the ability to file ethics charges for her governorship of Alaska would run out immediately before the Presidential primary jockeying began last summer, meaning no more ethics complaints smears; no more “free” opposition research by filing outright false, or at absolute best questionable, ethics complaints and document fishing expeditions. Also, the timing basically guaranteed that her subordinate, the Lt. Gov. will get to be Gov. of Alaska for 10 years AND continue most of her policies long enough for them to become untouchable.

    As for Palin’s choice not to run for President, I’ll repeat myself from prior threads: Palin is only 47 (she’ll be 48 next month). She could sit on the sidelines building up her support networks, grass-roots support and defining the TEA Party until the 2020 election cycle, and at age 56 STILL be one of the younger presidential candidates in modern history if elected.

    “I personally lost all respect for Sarah Palin, when she quit her responsbilities to her constituents and supporters, twice no less..”

    When did Palin quit twice? Unless you mean her well paying position on the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission so she could publicly speak out against the corruption going on.

    Maybe you’re reacting a little too emotionally? You do know that Gingrich quit as Speaker of the House and later his position as U.S. Representative?

    History can help produce good analysis.

    Your feelings about the reason for Romney being out front is something few think of. I wrote a post about it called “Is there a Conspiracy to Nominate Romney”?

    I have seen this exact same post from you on 3 other sites, TeaPartyPatriot4Ever. You must do a lot of copying and pasting.

    Upon her return to Alaska to resume her duties as Governor, Sarah Palin was plagued with one trumped up ethics charge after another which cost her staff dearly.
    That entire campaign of BS lawsuits was meant to do nothing but hamstring the governor’s office and bankrupt Sarah Palin.

    The endless ethics investigations were threatening to overshadow her legislative agenda. Attacks inside Alaska and largely invisible to the national media had paralyzed her administration.

    She saw that if she stayed on as Governor it would continue to cost the state millions of dollars in wasted time and resources to defend against false and maliciously ethics complaints and doom it to gridlock.

    In just under 8 months those frivolous lawsuits had already cost the state of AK close to $2 million .
    Sarah Palin had over $600,000 dollars in legal fees.

    Essentially, the taxpayers were paying for Sarah Palin to go to work every day and defend herself.

    By the way, she had fulfilled all the campaign promises she made, i.e., ethics reform, budget cutting, earmark cutting, getting the natural gas pipeline off high center through an open, transparent, and competitive process!

    In an article Sarah Palin said:

    “I said, ‘Enough. Political adversaries and their political friends in the media will not destroy my State, my administration, nor my family. Enough.’ I knew if I didn’t play their game any longer, they could not win. I would not retreat, I would instead reload, and I would fight for what is right from a different plane.”

    She promised to keep the frivolous anti-Palin law suits away from the Alaskan people and to be more effective on the stump ( supporting candidates , fundraising, etc)
    Sarah Palin was truthful on both accounts!

    For the past three years Sarah Palin has worked tirelessly to fight Obama’s policies and elect conservatives; she was #1 in the fight!
    She basically spearheaded the 2010 victory with her endorsements, and rallies all over the country!

    Sarah Palin has repeatedly offered serious policy statements on issues such as health care, the Federal Reserve’s money printing in funding our federal deficit, crony capitalism, energy independence, etc)
    She was the first Republican to make a high-profile critique of the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing, though even earlier she had marked the collapsing value of the dollar as one of her issues.

    Sarah Palin has discussed more policy specifics in her speeches and through her writing than anyone else in the 2012 field!

Zero effect. Newt has 7% chance to win SC.

    Intrade might be indicating that now, but that could easily change by tomorrow morning. If you need a more historical example, look at the chart for Romney vs the chart for Gingrich for about a month ago, when Gingrich was surging, and Romney was toast.

    It’s a lagging indicator based on perception that all knowledge is public, or that non-public knowledge is irrelevant. We KNOW both of those propositions to be false. One more strong performance by Gingrich and one even minor slip-up by Romney and the whole thing could go sideways almost instantly.

    The intrade model right now is doing what we classically call “Chasing the Returns.” It means that everybody is piling on thinking that it’s going to go higher without examining the underlying asset to see if it’s actually worth what people are (purportedly) paying for it.

      A “See I Told You So” moment (borrowing from Rush).

      As of 3.26 PM EST on 1/19/12 Intrade now estimates Gingrich at a 45% chance to win, Romney having slipped to 59.9%, Santorm and Paul at 0.4%. (numbers do not equal 100% because the “investment security” model has them independent of each other).

      This thing could still go up, down or sidewase between now and Saturday night.

    G Joubert in reply to mikehinton. | January 18, 2012 at 12:34 am

    Here’s to just acquiescing to the nimrods at intrade to select the next president. To me, intrade is kinda like snopes (you know, the people who get to decide what is an urban legend and what is not –always with a leftard tilt.

    Another thing I love are the dolts who claim, “I used to be a Sarah Palin supporter, until she [fill in whatever it was that changed their mind].” Real stable lot there.

    Estragon in reply to mikehinton. | January 18, 2012 at 1:00 am

    As with equity markets, InTrade’s predictive value depends upon volume. On light trading days, markets may gain or lose because the few trades are in that direction, but it doesn’t indicate what is really going on.

    The primary contracts are of such low volume as to be insignificant as predictors. This is normal, the primaries never attract the level of interest the general election will. Once it gets to the general, you will see volumes in the thousands of contracts.

huskers-for-palin | January 17, 2012 at 10:56 pm

Tweets from Tammy Bruce:

So, GOP Machine, you wanted Palin to be a “cheerleader.” Well, now you’ve got it. Be careful what you wish for 🙂

The Palin Newt hat tip is also a deserved stick-in-the-eye to Nikki Haley. Palin messing w Haley’s choice makes SC primary suddenly fun 🙂


This is an endorsement…sorta.

It seems to me it is an endorsement of primarily keeping the primaries going; a tactical endorsement, not a strategic endorsement. Keeping Mitt’s numbers down help Rick and Rick as well as Newt…

…and frankly herself – the wishes of this site and many other’s may bring about a carnage of unintended consequences. Dont think for a second that things can be brought up that will cause Newt to never rise about a 25% support amongst within the GOP base. Jacobson keeps on harping about Mitt’s (and Rick’s and Rick’s) deficiencies, yet casually glosses over Newt’s.

Take them all down and who is left standing?

I can understand the “Not Romney” endorsement.

Perry was supposed to be the Tea Party standard bearer but fizzled in the pre-game.

RP will get his constituents and hopefully use them to modify the GOP platform which is used to judge “REAL republicans.” His foreign policy is from outer space, but the fiscal issues will have to be addressed. So will the borderline dictatorship the office is becoming.

Santorum could have been – but his big govt tendencies havent been fully uncovered. He pings high on the social con radar which is not what we need at this point.

That leaves Newt of the Not-Romneys. Yes, he’s big govt. But he has worked with dems. He has gotten republicans in power. He has stuck to his guns thereby pissing off the establishment. What he hasn’t done has been to take up the combat-crony-capitalism as a front and center problem. If any of them did that, they’d get her endorsement in a heartbeat. Instead – Newt’s Fanny Mae history stinks of crony capitalism, which is the antithesis of Sarah’s cause.

I’m sure in part Mrs. Palin doesn’t want to endorse a candidate because if the voters don’t agree with her, it makes her look less influential. But she has basically endorsed Gingrich.

Debates aren’t everything. Gringrich proposed and Romney imposed single-payer medical care. My God, how can such a human being possibly be the Republican nominee?

Rick Santorum believes in approaches more respectful of our dignity and freedom.

Sell yours all you want for a nice sound bite. Please just don’t sell mine with yours.

[…] I was in South Carolina, in order to keep this thing going, I’d vote for Newt,” but Legal Insurrection already posted about it: h216(); Sarah Palin on Hannity just stated that if she were in South […]

Governor Palin did not endorse Gingrich. She simply said, “If I had to vote in South Carolina in order to keep this thing going, I’d vote for Newt.”

I strongly encourage people to watch the entire interview to understand her reasoning:

“I’m sure in part Mrs. Palin doesn’t want to endorse a candidate because if the voters don’t agree with her, it makes her look less influential.”

Your conclusion doesn’t match her history. She endorsed over 60 candidates in the 2010 elections including a number of long shots like Nikki Haley, Rand Paul, Allen West and Marco Rubio (who won) and Sharron Angle and Carly Fiorina (who lost). She didn’t seem to be particularly worried about “looking less influential” a year and a half ago.

    Karen Sacandy in reply to T D. | January 18, 2012 at 9:58 am

    I disagree. She’s active in the R. Party to put it mildly. She’s watched the debates for sure, and she’s aware of all the policy angles. At this point, she has enough information to KNOW who she would like to see in the office of the presidency.

    She’s holding back for some reason, and it’s not because she lacks information.

She was pretty clear about it being a strategical consideration.

The real problem this cycle – like last – is Florida. They jumped ahead in the process, forcing Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina to move up a full month to keep their early positions. This was no shock, since they did the same last time, too, and the RNC is unwilling to punish Florida in any meaningful way.

Except for that, we would still have two weeks until Iowa!

    retire05 in reply to Estragon. | January 18, 2012 at 9:33 am

    Florida, like Iowa, New Hampshire, SC, and all eary states, were punished with the slashing of their delegate counts to half. Florida went from 99 delegates to 50. Consequently, at the end of Super Tuesday, when all the votes are counted, there will still not be enough awarded delegates to give anyone the nomination. ONE candidate would have to win ALL primaries and take EVERY delegate between now and the end of March to take the nomination. With some states being proportional, that just ain’t gonna happen.

    We will not have a nominee until April.

    Palin knows this. She can count. So, the throws Newt a bone for SC to deplete Romney’s delegate count. If Newt takes SC, with its 25 delegates, that puts him in the lead against Romney’s 18. Again, Florida is strong on the radar with 50 delegates and winner-take-all. Any of the other candidates, Santorum, Perry, could basically wipe out the counts from the previous four states.

    This primary season could turn into a herding cats fiasco instead of having a nominee at the end of Super Tuesday.

    theduchessofkitty in reply to Estragon. | January 18, 2012 at 11:18 am

    And that is why, if I had any influence in politics at all, I would love to suggest a Federal Elections law that would make sure not a single Presidential caucus or primary would take place until after President’s Day.

    Bringing caucuses and primaries earlier has harmed a lot of the Presidential election process. People are not in tone with Presidential primaries until after February 1st. I believe having all of this earlier doesn’t guarantee the best candidates are picked for sure – only the most monied or the better organized. But not the best. I liked it better when people weren’t sure of who the nominee was until June.

She did not endorse Gingrich. She gave a hypothetical answer. What she endorsed was that the primary/caucus process continue and Republicans avoid a coronation in favor of Romney. Listen to the interview and not just the “snippet” posted on

Speaking of Romney:

Krauthammer: Romney “Doesn’t Have The Capacity To Explain” Conservative Ideas

    Karen Sacandy in reply to john.frank. | January 18, 2012 at 10:14 am

    She endorsed him for South Carolina, which is a shame. Santorum has beaten Gringrich in Iowa and New Hampshire, and yet she throws a bone to Gingrich.

    Gringrich who has hissy fits and tantrums, and essentially thinks socialism is a good idea if he’s in the mood that day.

    I want someone who ALWAYS thinks socialism is a bad idea, not just when he’s not infatuated with his own Plato-esque “republic” grandiosity.


    Santorum is steady and consistent, and pays attention to the long run truth: the decline of the family and the work ethic is hurting us. Even when this economy improves, we will still have fractured families which damages children profoundly. When will we start to care? When will we admit that Moms are better at raising their own children than daycare centers? When will we quit denying the evidence?

    I’m tired of seeing young people with no drive and no ambition and no desire for personal independence. I grieve for the products of public schools that I am FORCED to pay for.

      Sarah Palin did not endorse Newt ;rather offering some advice that will help to ensure that all the candidates be fully vetted and that the race continue

Since according to her detractors Palin is insignificant why care who she would support? And it’s time to get over “SHE QUIT” on her constituents. Boo hoo – momma dissappointed you and now you hate her – grow the freak up.

People need to stop projecting their thoughts on her – read what she said – not what you think she said. She’s made it fairly clear that she supports the primary process and would vote Newt to help keep it going.

November 2012 Animal Farm Rematch: Mama grizzly & honey badger vs. Napoleon le cochon

This is far from an endorsement; it’s keeping the ball in play and giving the “people” – you, me – as much say in this primary process as possible and not letting the RNC “crown” the next in line. It’s good and it’s healthy. There have only been 2 primary votes so far and the RNC wants it wrapped up? I don’t think so. Going out cast my vote here in Florida and will do my bit to keep this from being decided by the powers that be who think they know better, and that we should all fall in line like good little “sheeple.”

It’s going to be funny if/when Palin does endorse someone. We’ll get the “who cares she’s a quitter who everyone hates” from the supporters of the candidates she didn’t endorse. If her endorsement doesn’t do the candidate much good we’ll get whining about how “she should have endorsed him when it would have done some good rather than play coy and wait.”

And most sensible people will say “hmm, I agree with many of Palin’s positions so let me see if I agree with her endorsement – if not – no problem I’ll make my own choice anyway.”

Henry Hawkins | January 18, 2012 at 3:12 pm

I’ve never heard an official endorsement where it wasn’t exactly clear that it was an official endorsement. They always come with an iteration of all the endorsed candidate’s wonderful attributes, and almost always offered on stage, in front of cameras, with the endorsed candidate and endorser arm in arm. Palin did not officially endorse Gingrich.

However, whatever you want to call what Palin said, it will have a positive affect in Palin territories, and SC is definitely Palin territory. I’d guess it’s worth a 1-3 percentage points net gain in SC.

[…] in the wind? The inevitability of Mitt Romney dented? Who knows – but it earned Newt some kudos from the “totally irrelevant” Frum disdained Sarah Palin and Robert Stacy McCain seemed […]