In this really excellent editorial, that she self-published on her facebook page, the former governor of Alaska and 2008 Republican candidate for Vice-President breaks down how the old guard of the Republican party are at odds with the Tea Party movement, whose members want serious change in DC coming out of this election. 

This divide has made for some strange examples of folks on opposite sides of a political disagreement when one would normally expect them to be allies.  On the establishment side we see the likes of George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Hugh Hewitt and Fred Barnes.  We also see politicians like John Boehner.  On the Tea Party side we see people like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin.  And we see Sarah Palin, Allen West and Marco Rubio.  I stand with the latter group.  What good is it really to win the White House with a timid, vision-challenged, go-with-the flow politician in times like these?  Right now these establishment types seem ready to reverse Ronald Reagan's classic vision for the Republican Party: It appears they wouldn't mind pale pastels, and are unwilling to fight for bold colors. 

 

I think that is a mistake.  I think the nominee with the best chance to win will be the one who can best draw a bold, clear contrast between himself and the policies of the President.  I've said all along that we need to elect a President who is going to go back to DC and bring the wrecking ball.  That's why I've been supporting Newt Gingrich.  Half measures won't get it done.  Not this time.  Sarah was right when she wrote in her post: "We truly need sudden and relentless reform in Washington to defend our republic, though it’s becoming clearer that the old guard wants anything but that."  She also questions, and rightly I think, whether or not the Republican establishment will go on the attack as vehemently against Mr. Obama as they have against Mr. Gingrich. 

 

Good questions all.  As I often say when it comes to Sarah Palin: You go girl!!