Click 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.
42 responses so far
1 TAZ // Feb 6, 2010 at 10:47 pm
I dont think Palin helps out the Republican party in any way by not only calling for tea party challengers to Republicans in primaries, but supporting them over the Republican candidates as well.
She seems happy in her new roll as de facto head of the Tea Party (Republican Neocon Christian Right Wing).
What is the Republican party to do with her?
2 Mandos // Feb 6, 2010 at 10:50 pm
Wait a minute…what have you done with Kuplitsky????!!~!!!~!!!!!
3 Jim_M // Feb 7, 2010 at 12:06 am
What is the Democrat party to do with…him?
4 kevin47 // Feb 7, 2010 at 1:41 am
“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?”
This was your questions, which is one potential question among many, but certainly not THE question.
“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.”
So she gave a speech that reflects, in form and content, speeches she has given prior. I’m shocked.
“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.”
So, her speech was textbook GOP stuff, coming from a woman with a track record of same. What have we learned?
“Nor did she make any claim to leadership of the Tea Party movement.”
For the reasons that she does not lead the tea party movement, had no role in its impetus, has participated in the movement only to comment on it and, on occasion, speak at functions.
“Not that anything she said was particularly brilliant.”
What political speech, given in the last year, would anyone qualify as brilliant? The Obama race speech was brilliant, I suppose, in a Nixon-Checkers sort of way.
“The speech was a color-by-numbers affair:
Describing a speech as a “color-by-numbers affair” is a color-by numbers affair.
“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.”
Which colors are those?
“And, of course, there were the applause lines about her son in the infantry, and children with special needs.”
You could do this sort of implicit criticism thing with anyone. Joey woke up and headed to work. Nothing unoriginal. He got in his car, turned the ignition. Of course, he stopped to get a cup of coffee and a danish on the way in. There were no moments of inspiration in Joey’s first hour at work, since he mostly checked e-mails before sitting on his usual Wednesday team meeting. To his credit, he did a nice job on the report on the Jenkins account, but by lunchtime, he was back to updating contract language.
“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.”
For example? This is far more interesting than a blow-by-blow of her uneventful speech, yah? How did the Tea Partier’s respond to the RNC-friendly talking points? Was there disillusionment? What was cult-like?
“And so she didn’t have to go overboard to please the crowd.”
Why would she have to? What indicated to you that only an overboard speech would work? Was the crowd pleased? What did they think about the JFK reference?
“To her credit, she didn’t.”
Damned if you do. Damned with faint praise if you don’t.
5 chicago_guy // Feb 7, 2010 at 7:11 am
Palin at the Tea Party convention seemed the epitome of the One-Eyed Man being in charge of the Kingdom of the Blind.
They love her because she can give something that faintly resembles shape to their incoherent anger and resentment. She legitimizes a bunch of old, cranky, white folks who have been angry all their lives. Ask them what they hate, and they can give you a laundry list of specific things like “socialized health care” (despite the fact that they and their parents benefit from it) and “welfare” (despite the fact that most of them are on that too – Social Security is welfare writ large). Ask them what they’re for, and you get vague mentions of “freedom” and “liberty” – nice words, but not very meaningful when considering policy options.
Again, Palin is right up their alley. She’s great with empty phrases, and a total suck-ass when it comes to specific policies grounded in reality. She can make stuff up when it suits her (oh BOY, can she make stuff up…..), but sit her down and try and get specific policies or solutions out of her, and she’s no more specific than she was when Couric asked her a series of innocuous questions. To her, the details don’t matter. In that, she’s perfect for a Tea Party universe, where it’s what you FEEL, not what you think that matters.
Somewhere in the US, there’s got to be a conservative leadership class that believes in the Reality-Based World as well as basic conservative fiscal principles – but wherever they are, they’re being awfully quiet these days.
6 CentristNYer // Feb 7, 2010 at 9:04 am
Jonathan, you claim, “Palin didn’t say anything more nasty than that Obama was a ‘charismatic guy with a teleprompter.’”
Really?
She accused him of being soft on terrorism, slammed him for “apologizing” to our enemies and blamed him for the deficits that were largely Bush-induced. Seems pretty nasty — not mention divorced from reality — to me.
7 anniemargret // Feb 7, 2010 at 9:53 am
She is no question about it, the de fact head of the Republican party . The cynicism and fear-mongering that she epitomizes and then translates to these ‘angry’ (can’t exactly say what I’m angry about, but I mad as hell and not going to take it anymore) crowd. She’s their darling.
But as I mentioned before. Republicans give her lip service. They admit she is powerful, charismatic and a symbol of righteousness “christian” old-timey social conservatism, but they are now caught between a rock and hard place. Karl Rove knew how power this group was when he stirred them up during Bush’s runs for the presidency.
So does the Republican party embrace their principles of homophobia/christian-supremacy/anti-miniorities/anti-big-city/anti-intellectualism/climatechange-denialists/evolution-denialists/etc…or do they distance themselves from her and these ‘angry’ white folks. It was hysterical reading that there were 2 (2!) black people speaking from the podium, as if it was some sort of achievement.
The reason the majority of black folks are not participatory in these ‘tea parties’ is they know exactly how and who most of these people are. It is not just a ‘few’ racists among them…it is the majority of them. They are strangling on the idea that this country no longer looks like 50s America, and they cannot stand the change.
This next decade belongs to the young people, now in their 20s and 30s who by far, are the antithesis of what the ‘teabaggers’ stand for. They are progressive and well educated. It will be interesting to watch how the Republicans try to salvage any respect among these demographics using Palin and her ‘angry mob’ as bait.
8 joedee1969 // Feb 7, 2010 at 10:57 am
I am not even sure what The Tea Party really is.I don’t think we know yet.
9 PracticalGirl // Feb 7, 2010 at 11:20 am
Like Kay, I found it noteworthy (but not surprising) that Miss Wasilla refuses to take any leadership for the movement that she claims to support. This is a woman who learned well on the pageant circuit that it is better-and even possible, with the right audience-to have your bread buttered on both sides. She can say whatever she wants and customize it for whatever audience she speaks to. Thus, at the Tea Party gathering, she fits seemlessly with a mentality that the GOP has lost its way and needs to get “right” with God.
Yet, what happens when the Tea Party faithful discover that she is nothing but a chameleon? Do take a peek at what’s going on in Arizona. Miss Wasilla is in the thick of things and has picked a Senate candidate. That it is the man who gave her a shot at the limelight is no surprise to me. That she is stumping against JD Hayworth-an outspoken proponent of Tea Party principles and the movement itself- might surprise the Tea Partiers. What happens when they find out that Palin is more interested in her own agenda than anything they support? Probably just a new narrative for folks starved for a leader-who-refuses-to-lead, but it bears examination that Palin is supporting what many call a RINO over a Tea Partier in at least on election.
10 anniemargret // Feb 7, 2010 at 11:24 am
practicalgirl: excellent analysis.
11 sinz54 // Feb 7, 2010 at 12:06 pm
CentristNYer:
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.
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?
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?
12 Mandos // Feb 7, 2010 at 12:12 pm
There’s productive debt, and there’s unproductive debt. The debt incurred by Bush was largely in things that are ruining the USA—the war in Iraq, etc.
13 PracticalGirl // Feb 7, 2010 at 12:28 pm
Sinz:
Even Obama has taken responsibility for his part in the deficit, something that the Bush administration thus far refuses to do.
Miss Wasilla is right on one point: Washington, on the whole, is complicit in the deficit-both parties. But you’ll never hear her talk about what she’d do with reality- the trillions that are mandatory spending, I mean-except that she’d cut revenue. Really? How, then would she deal with the real numbers as they sit? So much easier to “blame” rather than “solve.
The New York Times had a good, simple breakdown of budget expenditures. While I admit that I’d love to have a budget where I could allocate over 400 billion as “other”, there are a lot of numbers that cannot, will not change. Its great fun to point and allude, captialize on populist feelings and reinforce with her masses that, really, this is just the Socialists fault. But the time for platitudes of Palin and her ilk to give way to those who are actually struggling with these staggering numbers.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html
14 rbottoms // Feb 7, 2010 at 12:37 pm
What a dimwit.
~ I mock you with my monkey pants,
Oz, BtVS
15 PracticalGirl // Feb 7, 2010 at 12:41 pm
rbottoms, you never cease to make me smile.
Meryl STreep recently gave a commencement speech at a college in which she warned students against accepting the idea that life is a lot like college.
“It is not,” she charged. “It’s a lot like high school.”
Miss Wasilla seems to prove this.
16 Jim_M // Feb 7, 2010 at 4:57 pm
I love what Mrs. Palin does to crest fallen and confused statists. A fully realized woman and rugged
individualist. Much for America to admire and flimsy left ideologues to despise.
God bless her and keep her.
17 rbottoms // Feb 7, 2010 at 5:05 pm
With $100,000 of the suckers’ money in her pocket.
Outstanding.
18 Jim_M // Feb 7, 2010 at 5:27 pm
Thanks
19 rbottoms // Feb 7, 2010 at 5:38 pm
You big dummy.
~ Fred Sanford
20 anniemargret // Feb 7, 2010 at 7:38 pm
Jim_M: “God bless her and keep her.”
Keep her. Please. She’s the gift that keeps on giving.
It is not that she is underestimated. It is only that we Dems were slow to underestimate the deep cynicism of Republicans by putting her out in the forefront as the best they got for this country.
21 Christopher78665 // Feb 7, 2010 at 8:11 pm
To: Everyone
Please sign the Tea Party Pledge
http://www.conservativeexodusproject.com/
and tell everyone you know to sign it. Thanks.
—-
22 PracticalGirl // Feb 7, 2010 at 10:35 pm
I pledge to join the other rudderless and philosophy-lite naysayers who are without knowledge of history, only kow what they don’t want, worship Sarah Palin and want to elect as many government officials that they can to keep government out of their lives. The folks who gave us the best line of 2009, bar none:
“Keep your government hands off my Medicare.” — Aug 5, 2009 townhall meetingin South Carolina
You betcha!
23 hopitab // Feb 7, 2010 at 10:42 pm
Have I got the chronology wrong or did Palin deliver a speech that was written a day or a week before she gave it and seemed to be unable to reconcile it with reality? The “Christmas Bomber” has not shut up having been “lawyered up.” He’s singing like a canary and, I suspect, in part because his parents could respect the process enough to come and talk to him. He’s a poster child for continuing to trust in our judicial system. The message I got from Palin was: the constitution is only for those who support it. Isn’t that like democracy is only for the people who agree with me?
24 Jim_M // Feb 7, 2010 at 10:42 pm
The Army Air Corp used to say you know your on target when your taking a lot of flak. What is it about strong, independent women who are not joiners, that makes the left FREAK?
A lady, wife, a devoted mother who hunts, fishes and works with her hands. Come to think of it I suppose thats why statists hate her. She does for herself.
Don’t know where she’ll end up in the political spectrum. I just hope it lasts long enough for more little Maoists to pop a vein or two. =)
25 anniemargret // Feb 7, 2010 at 10:52 pm
Jim: A ‘lady, a wife and a devoted mother…” pretty much describes your everyday woman who is juggling two jobs and then going home exhausted at night to take care of her children. OK…maybe the fishing and hunting puts Sarah in a smaller class, I will grant you that.
Why are these attributes somehow indicative of a person qualified to be the single greatest and most powerful figure on the face of the earth? Can you imagine Americans picking a man to be president by describing how he’s a great father and husband and goes fishing and hunting? Talk about lowering the bar for the presidency!
And you appear to forget a very important thing….. Ms. Palin cut and ran. She quit her public office and her duty to Alaskans . What’s there to admire? And you should ck the polls. It is not just ‘the left’ that finds her lacking.
26 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.
27 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.
28 rbottoms // Feb 8, 2010 at 2:23 am
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?
29 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.
30 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.
31 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.
32 sinz54 // Feb 8, 2010 at 9:34 am
Jim_M:
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?
33 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.
34 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.
35 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.
36 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.
37 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.
38 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
39 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.
40 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.
41 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.
42 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.
You must log in to post a comment.