The Tea Party Making All The Right Moves?

Well, it didn’t take long for the Tea Party to wilt under the Special Interest Political pressure. All the promises of “fixing a broken Washington” has not become a “moot” point to 12 freshman congressional members who, during their first campaigns said there needed to be a “new” spirit in Washington, one that wouldn’t buckle to special interest groups and would keep their political interest with the needs of the people who elected them.


"Book your Key Largo getaway now," reads the invitation, obtained by CBS News. The hosts are veteran congressmen Spencer Bachus, of Alabama, Pete Sessions, of Texas, "and 12 of your favorite Republican freshmen!"


The 12: Sandy Adams (Fla.), Quico Canseco (Texas), Rick Crawford (Ark.), Bob Dold (Ill.), Sean Duffy (Wis.), Stephen Fincher (Tenn.), Mike Fitzpatrick (Penn.), Daniel Webster (Fla.), Mike Grimm (N.Y.), Nan Hayworth (N.Y.), Jim Renacci (Ohio) and Cory Gardner (Col).


I have several pairs of shoes that are older than the time they have “served” the constituents of their respective communities and still have given in to the status quo.


The sad part is that they succumbed to veteran senators who seem hell bent on turning these “idealist” to the dark side and certainly would make Darth Vader proud. Especially when you consider that these freshman are still two years away from their re-election campaigns.


There is a bright side to this story and that is, we the people really can’t say that the Republican congress is not hard at work. Unfortunately, it’s not the type of work we elected them to do. But don’t worry too much, the freshman will still get paid their $170,000 per annum from those that elected them.

Palin Heart Newt

Editor's note: S.E. Cupp is the author of "Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media's Attack on Christianity" and co-author of "Why You're Wrong About the Right." She is a columnist at the New York Daily News and a political commentator for Glenn Beck's GBTV.

(CNN) -- Far be it for me to offer unsolicited advice to Sarah Palin. She's built a very successful career out of going rogue and certainly doesn't need any tips from me.

And, as an occasional pundit, a political influencer and a private citizen, she's free to throw her weight behind anyone she wants.

But I just have to say it: Newt Gingrich? Really?

Now, I'm not in the camp of conservative elites who think she's seen her best days and should politely retire to obscurity. If anything, the premiere of "Game Change" on HBO on Saturday is proof that she's still relevant; she's got considerable influence over a certain wing of the party.

S.E. Cupp

And so with great power comes great responsibility. Is Newton Leroy Gingrich the most responsible pick?

Of all the remaining candidates, in fact, the one that makes the least sense is Newt. Mitt Romney I could see, if she wanted to bring the party together. Rick Santorum I could see for his social conservatism, strong Christian faith and similar family stories. I could even see Ron Paul for his "throw the bums out" and "end the Fed" rogue-isms. But Newt?

When rumors first started swirling that Palin might back the former House speaker and self-appointed "cheerful" candidate, Gingrich was surging then. She said she'd vote for him in South Carolina if she could. She wanted to keep the primary alive, she said. And, playing to Newt's strength at the time, she urged "more debates" and "more vetting of candidates."

Julianne Moore's Palin '100% sourced'

Analysis: Gingrich not connecting

Palin leaves door open for 2012 run

Gingrich: 'I'm the tortoise'

But now, with Newt's ham-fisted campaign out of mojo, and no debates on the horizon, it would seem like a good time to jump off that train and get behind Romney or Santorum.

Instead, she doubled down Tuesday, telling Fox Business Network that she voted for Gingrich in the Alaska caucuses, where he finished dead last. And why? "I have appreciated what he has stood for," she said. "He has been the underdog in many of these primary races and these caucuses."

Again, Palin's free to like any candidate she wants, and those would be valid arguments, if they were true.

What Newt has stood for, both during his political career and during this campaign, sits in total contradiction to what Palin has stood for since becoming a public figure. She's for small government; he's shown a disturbing penchant for big government solutions. She champions Washington outsiders and rails against the establishment; he's the epitome of establishment, and has been firmly encamped inside the Beltway for decades. The very people who appreciate Palin should be the same people who despise Gingrich.

And he's hardly been an "underdog." With the backing of billionaire financier Sheldon Adelson and the benefit of serious name recognition, he's enjoyed the money, media attention and opportunity that other GOP candidates didn't. If Newt's been an underdog, I'm sure Jon Huntsman and Michele Bachmann would have been happy to switch places.

The truth is, Newt isn't the "little guy" in any sense of the word. And if that were truly Palin's criteria, there are actual little guys, such as Buddy Roemer and Gary Johnson to champion.

Or even better, she doesn't have to support any of them.

Maybe Palin's got a master plan in which she makes a late run at the presidency and puts Newt on her ticket. Still, it seems like an incongruous pick and waste of her considerable influence among far-right conservatives.

But I'm sure she knows what she's doing.