Did Sarah Palin endorse Newt Gingrich or not?

A lot of media folks are leaping to the conclusion that Sarah Palin did endorse Newt Gingrich on a Fox News show Tuesday night, but we’re not so sure.

Stephan Savoia/AP
Former vice presidential candidate and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin addresses a Tea Party Express Rally in Manchester, N.H., September 2011. Did Palin really endorse Newt Gingrich Tuesday night? We're not so sure.

Did Sarah Palin really endorse Newt Gingrich Tuesday night on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show? A lot of folks in the "lame-stream media" are leaping to the conclusion that she did, but we’re not so sure.

Yes, Todd Palin has already said he’s backing the former speaker of the House. And when Mr. Hannity asked Ms. Palin if she would follow suit, the former Alaska governor said this: “If I had to vote in South Carolina, in order to keep this thing going, I’d vote for Newt.”

But the context is interesting here. First of all, Palin made it clear that what she really wants is for Mitt Romney to continue to have an array of conservative competition. The debates should keep going, she said, because “iron sharpens iron and steel sharpens steel.” More to the point, continuing competition would mean that maybe voters would get to examine the potential problems of potential nominees prior to the actual nomination.

“With the front-runner and with all the candidates, there are still too many questions,” said Palin, adding that these questions have to do with “their business dealings ... and their experience while serving in office.”

Does that sound like she thinks conservatives should keep looking into Mr. Romney’s experience at Bain Capital and his actions as Massachusetts governor? That’s what it sounds like to us, too.

“Front-runners and whoever it is have to have everything out there,” Palin said.

Palin did not mention Romney by name. But all the other non-Ron Paul candidates remaining in the race got a shout-out from John McCain’s 2008 veep choice. She had something good to say about all their performances in Monday night’s South Carolina debate.

Rick Perry must have had Texas chili and Dr Pepper from his home state prior to the debate, said Palin.

“Somebody must have been able to import it to him because he was on fire with some of those segments he participated in,” Palin told Hannity.

Rick Santorum? “Santorum, too, he had an opponent up on the ropes,” she said, without mentioning that that opponent might have been – you guessed it – Romney.

Palin was on for 10 minutes or so, and near the end, Hannity asked her directly whether she’d just endorsed Gingrich. She skittered around the question like, well, a politician.

“You know, I want that process to continue,” she repeated.

Our bottom line: Palin is pushing the guy she likes most, but wants to leave open her options to maybe swerve and go with somebody else if that somebody else looks like a better option.

She’s even leaving the door open a crack to a Romney endorsement. Asked if she’d back him if he were the nominee, she did not say no. She said, “I have said ... from the beginning, anybody but Obama.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.