RSS Feed MenuClick here for all of Jonathan Kay’s posts from the Tea Party convention in Nashville.
At the National Tea Party convention in Nashville, the question going into Saturday night’s keynote finale from Sarah Palin was: How extreme would she get in order to ingratiate herself with her audience?
The answer: She didn’t budge an inch from the chipper, red-state messaging she’s peddled since John McCain picked her as his VP nominee.
At a convention marked by extreme speeches and occasional conspiracy theories delivered from the podium, Palin did not take the bait. Her speech was by far the most moderate of the three-day convention, and nothing she said would have been out of place at a mainstream GOP event.
While Tea Party leaders here have been accusing Barack Obama of hatching evil plans for a “one world state,” Palin didn’t say anything more nasty than that Obama was a “charismatic guy with a teleprompter.” She even gave Obama credit for sticking the course in Afghanistan, and plugging nuclear power in the State of the Union Speech — something no one else dared say at this Obamaphobic convention.
Nor did she make any claim to leadership of the Tea Party movement. Indeed, at two points, she very clearly said the movement should retain its leaderless, ground-up structure.
Not that anything she said was particularly brilliant. The speech was a color-by-numbers affair that read like it was a paragraph-by-paragraph summary of a stack of Wall Street Journal editorials. Drill for more oil. Don’t criminalize the war on terror. Lobbyists in Obama’s White House. Nationalize the healthcare insurance market. Stand by Israel. Don’t apologize for America. But she said it well, as she always does, and she threw in some nice shout-outs to Ronald Reagan (whose 99th birthday would have been today) and — more surprisingly — JFK and Goldwater. And, of course, there were the applause lines about her son in the infantry, and children with special needs.
There’s clearly a cult of Palin at this Tea Party Convention: Everyone I talk to here speaks of her in reverential, almost religious, terms. And so she didn’t have to go overboard to please the crowd. To her credit, she didn’t.
Jim_M // Feb 8, 2010 at 12:16 am
anniemargret,
She (also) ran a small business with her husband for years. Won an office on the city counsel, became mayor and then Governor. In other words, vastly more real world experience than our sitting president and former community organizer. But to be fair, no matter what room full of adults he’s in, he’s the least experienced. Seriously, think about that.
If I felt she was a quitter I’d be among the first to dismiss her. She isn’t. She “believes” that she did Alaska and her family a service by stepping aside. History will determine if she was mistaken or not.
She is despised by the left (and the good ol’ boy Republicans you rightly point out) for one reason and one reason only. She is unapologetically Conservative.
I have no idea where the Palin thing goes, if it goes at all. But modern American politics is a hell of a lot more interesting with her in it.
chicago_guy // Feb 8, 2010 at 12:58 am
“She (also) ran a small business with her husband for years. Won an office on the city counsel, became mayor and then Governor. In other words, vastly more real world experience than our sitting president and former community organizer.”
Fail. Obama had more people in his state district in Chicago than Palin had in her state, and served in state and federal government posts for 12 years prior to the WH. And, unlike her, he didn’t quit his elected gigs once it became apparent he could make more money doing something else.
What concerns those who aren’t Palin fans isn’t her “strength”, it’s her stupidity. “Vapid” would be fine; the world is crawling with vapid politicians of every stripe, and Palin’s vapidity would be comical but not particularly worrisome. But “stupid” is much more dangerous, because it assumes that it knows answers to complex questions before it does any research; “Stupid” says “we just need to show them who’s boss” as the answer to every foreign policy question. Palin’s already demonstrated that she’s got a penchant for “stupid” that actually makes the previous occupant of the WH look like the Most Brilliant Man ever to hold the job.
You might like “stupid”, but rest assured, you’re in the minority.
rbottoms // Feb 8, 2010 at 2:23 am
You might like “stupid”, but rest assured, you’re in the minority.
I don’t know, there may be enough people who celebrate willful ignorance, anti-intellectualism to combine with the apathetic to give this empty headed woman a shot at the GOP nomination.
She’ll ultimately be crushed thereafter but in the meantime half of the contenders for the most powerful post in the world may likely be a woman who can’t remember three bullet points without writing them on her hand. Do we really want the rest of the world to believe we’d hand the keys to the nukes to someone who is certifiable before they arrived in office?
kevin47 // Feb 8, 2010 at 5:11 am
On Palmgate. We’re conceding, then, that Obama’s rhetorical gifts are on par with those of Sarah Palin? Good. I’ve been saying that for quite a while. Further, Palin can do with flesh and ink what Obama requires legions of SOTA technology to accomplish. This is the argument you want to make? Really?
“And, unlike her, he didn’t quit his elected gigs once it became apparent he could make more money doing something else.”
Yes he did. But either way, let’s face it. If she runs for president as governor of Alaska, you criticize her for being an absentee governor. We’re seeing that with the left re: Pawlenty.
matt81 // Feb 8, 2010 at 6:39 am
“Further, Palin can do with flesh and ink what Obama requires legions of SOTA technology to accomplish.”
First of all, this is a ridiculous argument. Politicians can use notes when they’re giving speeches. I for one don’t hold it against them. The question is, do they understand the speech they are giving, and can they give coherent answers to questions afterward? Obama certainly can… see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1y04g6OPLnQ
Let’s see Sarah Palin face an hour of unlimited questioning from the Democratic Caucus.
Jim_M // Feb 8, 2010 at 9:29 am
If nothing else, as long as she irritates, inflames and exasperates the left she has worth in my opinion.
sinz54 // Feb 8, 2010 at 9:34 am
Jim_M: She is despised by the left (and the good ol’ boy Republicans you rightly point out) for one reason and one reason only. She is unapologetically Conservative.
Not quite.
I remember the reaction from the Left when the news media reported that McCain was seriously considering Palin as his running mate. The “netroots” and the liberal-leaning mainstream media were puzzled but fair toward Palin.
Then Sarah Palin announced that her daughter Bristol was carrying a child out of wedlock–and all hell broke loose.
All the liberal/feminist women instantly started trashing Sarah Palin as a hypocrite for advocating abstinence (did Palin actually do that?), while her own daughter was pregnant out of wedlock. Aha! Conservative hypocrisy strikes again, after Sen. Larry Craig and so forth.
Then Sarah Palin also started talking about giving birth to a son, Trig, with Down’s Syndrome–and the feminist women really started frothing at the mouth. I wonder how many of them actually went into epileptic fits.
The reason? They believed that defective fetuses should be aborted, not carried to term. A number of them said so in print, in opinion colums and blogs.
Underlying all this hatred for Sarah Palin are the issues of women’s rights. It was liberal/feminist WOMEN who managed to frame Sarah Palin as a hick from the boondocks with Neanderthal attitudes (in their view) about abortion, pregnancy, and women’s rights.
I’ve noticed that feminists don’t get much pleasure out of having a family–especially not children with birth defects. What Sarah Palin did was uncover the implicit eugenics underlying so much feminist support for abortion: If amniocentesis reveals your child will be born with a birth defect, then just abort it! Why bother putting up with it when you’re also trying to juggle a professional career?
sinz54 // Feb 8, 2010 at 9:37 am
Jim_M:
In support of my thesis, I would also cite public opinion polls showing that Sarah Palin is viewed more favorably by MEN than by WOMEN.
She’s not impressing women with her success in business or politics. She is hated, absolutely hated, by left-wing women and feminist women. And it’s for the reasons I stated.
LFC // Feb 8, 2010 at 11:54 am
<sinz54 said… 1. Obama is soft on terrorism. No question about that. All the backpedaling he’s done in the last couple of months since the Christmas terrorist attack is proof of that.
Depends on your definition of “soft”. He’s certainly not as sadistic and self-defeating as the last crowd, who embraced torture when there is a line out the door of experienced interrogators who say that it doesn’t work for producing good intelligence. BTW, Obama increased drone attacks, has actually nailed terrorist leaders (not like Bush trumpeting every “trusted Lieutenant” killed), and even got the man responsible for the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.
Oh, yeah. He’s also actually trying to win in Afghanistan, unlike the last gang that couldn’t should straight. The Afghan/Pakistan border area is where many of the terrorist leaders actually live.
Sorry, but the facts point to Obama actually being more competent in fighting terror.
2. Obama has repeatedly apologized for America’s alleged past sins–as if that would earn us any brownie points. Has it? The vast majority of Americans are proud of their country. I know I am. Are you?
You can’t be proud of your country and admit that we f***ed up royally in the past? If that’s the case, you have a pretty shallow form of patriotism … one divorced from reality.
3. Sarah Palin did NOT blame Obama for the deficits. She merely noticed that “Washington” has now run up a $3.6 trillion debt. Bush didn’t do that. Obama took the deficits that Bush incurred, and TRIPLED them. That was HIS choice, and liberals like Paul Krugman are actually claiming that it’s not enough and we need to have even bigger deficits and bigger debts. Do you agree?
I call bulls**t. “Washington” ran up the debt because of Bush’s policies, though the GOP lead Congress certainly helped. Massive tax cuts? Check. Massive increases in discretionary spending with no cut/revenue offsets? Check. Massive increase in entitlement spending with no cut / revenue offsets? Check. Massive war costs with no cut / revenue offsets? Check. Failure to not only pass needed financial regulation, but willful and purposeful failure to uphold existing financial regulation? BIG TIME! SEC neutered? Check. OTS complacent? Check. OCC actively protecting criminal mortgage activity? Check.
The vast majority of “Obama’s deficit” is a drop in revenue from a recession that was ongoing for about 14 months before he took office. His increased spending and tax cuts were required to save our economy from that existing recession. BTW, his budget projections actually reduce (slightly) the size of the deficit from the one he inherited from Bush.
Do I agree that we need more gov’t stimulus right now? Yes. So did Reagan when he both cut taxes and increased spending to get us out of a bad recession. (It’s OK when St. Ronny does it, I guess.) I’ll judge Obama in 2-3 years, as I judged Reagan. If he makes no attempt to raise taxes and/or cut expenses (just like Ronny), I’ll be glad to blame him for those deficits.
Finally, look at this post and chart to find out where the current deficit and projected deficits REALLY came from. Almost all of the long-term issues are from Bush policies.
athensboy // Feb 8, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Someone please explain to me how the Tea Party Movement isn’t just an arm of the GOP?And is Palin so dumb she had to write crib notes on her palm? And for questions she knew in advance? The Teaparty seems like a fundraiser for the GOP, nothing more, nothing less.She works for Fox News which is basically the propaganda arm of the GOP.And how “grassroots” is $55o for a ticket? Or the 120,000 dollars for Sarah?Just like liberal blogs have claimed, this is a astro-turf movement, nothing more, nothing less.
LFC // Feb 8, 2010 at 1:11 pm
Sinz, here another good article on the failures of the Bush administration, and why virtually all of the current fiscal crisis can be laid at the feet of his administration and the GOP controlled Congress.
Money quote for you: “Hennessey doesn’t deny the undeniable reality that this is entirely because Obama inherited a collapsed economy and a structural deficit caused by Bush-era policy changes.” The term “undeniable reality” doesn’t seem to apply to you. I find that disappointing. You’re usually more level-headed than that.
balconesfault // Feb 8, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Obama took the deficits that Bush incurred, and TRIPLED them.
No. This is a falsehood. One that’s easy to overlook because the fiscal year runs September 31 to September 31 … but in reality if you go look at the Monthly Statement of the US Debt:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/mspd.htm
December 31, 2007 9.23 trillion
December 31, 2007 10.70 trillion
December 31, 2007 12.31 trillion
Thus, during the last full CALENDAR year Bush was in office, we ran a 1.47 trillion dollar deficit.
In 2009, the US ran a 1.61 trillion dollar deficit.
I am sick of the “tripled the deficit” canard. It is an attempt to deflect the responsibility for the acceleration of the deficit from Bush economics, and it will therefore distort any discussion of what will be a successful and responsible economic policy going forward.
If someone does not acknowledge that Bush ran a 1.47 trillion dollar deficit in 2008 … then they don’t deserve to be called a conservative. A Republican apologist, perhaps – but certainly not a fiscal conservative.
balconesfault // Feb 8, 2010 at 2:54 pm
Oops – those dates should have read as follows:
December 31, 2007 9.23 trillion
December 31, 2008 10.70 trillion
December 31, 2009 12.31 trillion
LFC // Feb 8, 2010 at 4:09 pm
Read about the types of speakers at this rally. The Tea Party Movement is quickly becoming the basis for a Christian Party, one that cares little for the Constitution and wishes to run the country by their Biblical interpretations.
Not that Jesus would ever have had a thing to do with their hate-mongering and finger-pointing.
anniemargret // Feb 8, 2010 at 9:37 pm
LFC: Yes. It is basically a Christian movement with political overtones. And while they give lip service to the Constitution when it fits their agenda, they have little regard for separation of church and state. If they could ‘christianize’ the government, they would. Palin is perfect for the leader of this movement .
She thanked all the ‘real people’ at the rally. “Real People.” Just another coinage for “Real Americans.” Her usual put-down of anyone that doesn’t fit her conception of what a ‘real American’ is…. Christian, right wing conservative, anti-government, anti-Obama.
She’s good at bromides and singing conservative platititudes, good at using quips and barbs and her poison darts that gets her cheers. Little substance, if any, because she is an academic sluggard. She hasn’t done her homework.
But “sinz” thinks ‘liberal women’ (all liberal women of course) hate her because she read some columns written by some feminists with extreme views. She subscribes to the school of the some/all fallacy. Some liberals think thus, so all liberal women think thus.
The real truth is that liberal women dislike Palin because, like liberal men and even some conservatives, we are shocked this this women who couldn’t even articulate why her son is in Iraq, who still thinks it ‘might’ have something to do with 9/11, who didn’t know what the Bush Doctrine was, etc…. is now saying she feels perfectly fine to grab the brass ring of the most powerful position in the world.
This is how far the cynicism has reached within the Republican party. They support her not because they really feel she is up to snuff, but because it ‘drives liberals crazy.’ They have no real belief in serious governance.
anniemargret // Feb 8, 2010 at 9:41 pm
athensboy: Her ‘crib’ notes made her look like a sly little ninth-grader trying to cheat on her algebra test. She has a lot of nerve to insult the President given this puerile display. She’s a phony.
PracticalGirl // Feb 8, 2010 at 10:15 pm
Good points, annie margaret.
And Sinz…A big fat raspberry for your generalized and generally ignorant comments about why feminists dislike Palin. It has nothing to do with whether or not she has children, nor does it have anything to do with her having a special needs child.
The reason that a Miss Wasilla Presidency scares the bejeezus out of many, many women?
1. She’s disengenuous
2. She’s ill informed, and in many ways downright igorant
3.. She puts a premium on her clothing over and above her actual content (she’s as creepy to women in that regard as John Edwards is to men)
4. She is ill-informed with a vengeance.
5. She obfuscates with impunity and a wink!
6. She’s frighteningly ill-informed and seems to think that’s a “good thing”
7. She contradicts herself, often from one day to the next
8. She’s a dabbler: She dabbled in motherhood until poltical power attracted her eye; she dabbled at political power playing until fame caught her eye. Bottom line: She’s “dabbled” in a lot, but never really devoted herself to seeing anything through.
9. She’s an unwielding, judgemental witch. Do read her papers from Alaska sometimes. She governed like a sorority girl. About what I would expect from a pageant pro, but good Lord- PRESIDENT?
10. She’s frighteningly uninformed, and stubbornly refuses to give a stab at even the most rudimentary improvement in her knowledge.
With your post, Sinz, you started to sound very like the unhinged MiGOPer or GOPROUD or whatever he’s going by these days. Get a grip. There is much to dislike about Palin, and women or feminists or Beagle puppies don’t have the corner on that market.