Posted on 08/01/2011 9:05:45 PM PDT by what's up
Edited on 08/01/2011 9:48:57 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Sarah Palin said that though Tea Party members are used to being labeled as racists and inciters of violence, she found it especially appalling that the second in command of the most powerful office in the world would say that Tea Party members are acting like terrorists.
Regarding the debt limit deal, she went on to say that while it is a victory to change the debate toward talking about the debt, there is much more work to be done. She does acknowledge that the debt limit deal is a step in the right direction but she doesn’t like giving what she believes may be the most liberal President in US history another 2 trillion dollars that we don’t have with no major reforms:
[Here's the interview of Palin on Greta a short time ago.]
We don’t have enough time left for a “step in the right direction”. The country is going to hell at lightning speed. The Congress and Senate are basically a gang of thieves and crooks. No one represents me anymore. Step in the right direction , oh isn’t that just dandy .
These are radical times and serious measures need be taken ...not steps in the right direction..There’s no one left with balls in this country
We don’t have enough time left for a “step in the right direction”. The country is going to hell at lightning speed. The Congress and Senate are basically a gang of thieves and crooks. No one represents me anymore. Step in the right direction , oh isn’t that just dandy .
These are radical times and serious measures need be taken ...not steps in the right direction..There’s no one left with balls in this country
Jim, you seem to have scared the usual PDS contingent away from this thread.
You ought to chime in more often on Palin threads. They’d be a lot more civil! LOL
This is a bill only a RINO could love.
But it doesn't mean that all conservatives hate it or don't consider it a partial victory like Palin aka "step forward".
Can't be repeated often enough. We really don't have time for piecemeal baby steps in "the right direction". We need to run like the wind, in a full frontal assault, if we're to save this country.
As to Sarah's remarks, I can only imagine that she realizes how shattered the good people of this country are tonight, and that is why she tried to strike a somewhat optimistic tone. As usual, her innate leadership qualities come through, even when everyone around her are blowing their tops.
Given that the vote had only just happened, and the fact that the public hasn't even seen the text of it yet, I believe that she wisely held back on blasting with both barrels tonight. Plenty of time for that, when she can get all of the information she needs to make a complete assessment of what this apparent monstrosity really is.
If there's one thing we know about her, it's that she is fearless, and not beholden to anyone. She tells the truth, and is not going to hold her tongue, if she reckons that we've been had (again) by the elites. Perhaps tonight was too early for her anger to rise over this. We'll see what the morrow brings.
I just watched the interview, and I agree with MM’s take, though I do understand how, in such a brief interview, Palin is at some risk of being misunderstood on this, even by well-meaning auditors. The key is picking up her emphasis.
Greta starts out with an unproven premise, that the whole thing, bill and all, somehow represented victory for the Tea Party. Palin borrows that language of victory but immediately begins to redefine what that means, first by excluding some of the most important features of the bill and casting those as NOT victory, then positing what actually victory was, forcing the debate to focus on the real problem, profligate spending. She then repeated how the actual bill failed to genuinely address the real problem, so she was not by any means vindicating either the shabby bill or the shabby process as victory.
Bottom line, I hear her telling us we’ve fired a shot across the bow, but we have a lot of work to do to get at the real problem, so keep your powder dry. It’s the sort of thing a good chief executive might say to a team that was disappointed with dismal early feedback on a difficult project. Not a “mission accomplished” kind of victory, but a “we kept them out of the end zone, so stay at it because we can eventually win this” kind of victory. Given our current players, that’ll have to do until we can change the roster in 2012, starting with QB (sorry about the mixed metaphors, but its late and I don’t have the energy to fix it).
Far from victory (Greta’s word), this bill is TARP redux, but four times as expensive and ten times as damaging. And it does absolutely nothing to address the manufactured “crisis” or the very real crisis: Out of control spending, unconstitutional overbearing government, skyrocketing debt, tanking economy and crippling unemployment. In fact, it worsens all of these problems.
“In our current crisis, government is not the solution; government is the problem.”
Never forget that. It always applies. Reagan was a wise man.
Every Reagan conservative should hate this government “solution.”
We’ve been taken to the cleaners PERIOD ..Thanx buddy for restating what I said. It can’t be said enough ..we do not have time for little steps in the right direction,,We need a list of who voted for this bullsh*t bill and we all need to flood their phones to assure them we will work to have them fired next time around.
These are radical times and nothing but hard hitting ,severe solutions are needed ..WE NEED A CONSERVATIVE LEADER ..SOMEONE WITH BIG BIG BALLS TO TELL IT LIKE IT IS IN PLAIN ENGLISH AND THEN DO SOMETHING RADICAL .
Thank you very much. I agree.
Oh yea in the final all out battle to save the country with time running out a “shot across the bow” is a big friggin help. Somebody wake me up when we are ready to actually fight to save the country . This is a MAJOR loss for us and our battle to save this nation. This Marxist bastard still has over a YEAR to do a lot more damage and we’re giving him the money to do so ..Nice work GOP a holes one and all.
Agree on that. And we all know Palin does as well.
I THINK I love you, but I will have to wait until your next really great post to be sure. LOL I wouldn’t want to be taken out of context or anything. So for tight now, that’s a definite maybe.
Your explanation was excellent.
MONEY is tight. YOU is right. Geez!
If we actually discuss any of these links, we should ping the person in, but I hope we don't have to do that. They are not all perfect examples, I was trying not to take too much time, and to get examples from just a couple of threads.
I really didn't think what I said was at all controversial -- I'm a Palin supporter and in this very thread I made at least one observation that another freeper pointed out was simply my projection onto what she said, a likely misinterpretation.
Endorsement of McCain Alienates Palin Supporters:
1: Attack the poster: Just trying to stir up trouble are we?
1: Attack the poster: Well, congrats,everyone. You seem to be accomplishing what the democrats desperately wanted to do but couldn’t. Doing in our best hope for conservative leadership.
1a: Attack the post:
The people posting on Facebook are liberal trolls.
1b: attack the post: Correct! This article came from the Atlanta Urinal and Constipation! Can’t anyone see the divide and conquer going on here...
1c: Attack the commenters: JD is dirty and you are a hypocrite. 1d: Attack the reporter: jay bookman is a nasty, vicious liberal.
2: Say she didn't mean it: No. Payment of a debt. After this the slate is clean.
3: Say it was misinterpreted: Hell, you haven't even heard her endorsement yet - it could be tepid as hell. I hope you are shamed.
4: Say she was forced into it: you can be sure she didn’t fall on her sword. She honored an earlier promise.
4: Say she was forced into it: She owed him one. Got to respect the fact that she repays her obligations.
2: Say she didn't mean it: Shall we parse this? did everything I could to stop global warming which was not a darn thing."
1: Attack the posters: But the Freepers who support, Mitt Say Anything Romney, Ron Paul, or Mike Huckleberry, will try to find anything against her. These posts are hilarious and obvious examples.
1: Attack the posters: If you keep track of the "tsk tsk" scumbags who posted on this thread, you'll generally see the same names pop up on other, similar threads where some desperate rat media mouse thinks he's breached Sarah's armor."
3: say they misinterpreted it: She's thankful for McCain giving her the opportunity, and she supports McCain taking advantage of the opportunity to run again in his state for the office of his choice.
3: say she didn't mean it: She is not going to go out of her way and campaign for him or give speeches on his behalf! She will remain neutral,
4: Say she's forced into it: she's loyal to him personally and feels that she owes him an enormous political debt,
There are many other examples, on several other issues than the McCain endorsement. FOr example, remember when it came out that Palin sneaked to Canada for Health Care?:
Refuse to believe it: smells like a fresh load bull crap to me.....
Say it's a lie: I call B.S.
Deny she said it: What??? Something doesn’t sound right here... I don’t believe Sarah said this.
Again, I don't think this is an issue, just a fact of life, not just for Sarah Palin supporters either. We all tend not to believe what we don't want to believe about our candidates, and we want our candidates to be saying what we expect them to say, and we are slow to believe when they say things we disagree with.
Because there are so many Palin fans here, it happens a lot in Palin threads. People assume they know what Palin will say, so they don't hear exactly what she actually says.
I certainly have made that mistake myself.
Yes, but Sarah used the same words several times. She is an excellent speaker, and knows how to say what she means. She certainly wasn't obligated to keep using victory just because Greta used it, and if she didn't think there was some victory, I am sure she was quite willing and capable to say exactly what she thinks.
I respect Sarah Palin enough to believe that when she says something, she means it, unless she explains later and in more detail that we have misunderstood. She knows how to say what she means, so I don't see the need to say she was forced to use the word victory.
There was no victory of any kind for the tea party or for America in this “deal.”
I think there was a partial victory here. But that's just my opinion. And that isn't what I am arguing here. I'm not saying that there was a victory. I'm saying that Sarah Palin SAID there was a victory. You could certainly be right even if Sarah Palin said otherwise.
We don't have to believe Sarah Palin says exactly what we want her to say in order to support her. Nor do we have to stop supporting her if she says something we disagree with. I don't think it is helpful to try to re-interpret her words simply because she didn't say what we were thinking.
Whether or not Sarah would have used the word "Victory" if not for Greta (and I don't believe that), I don't see how you can take the quote from Sarah and come to any conclusion other than that she is SAYING we should consider this outcome a victory and build on it.
Again, here is a full quote from the interview (emphasis mine):
I think that we shall take this victory and make sure that our politicians in office today are learning from this victory, realising that it's not a 100% pure genuine victory, because realise, greta, we just handed the most liberal president, I believe in US history, a 2.4 trillion dollar debt increase, we are allowing him to increase the budget even more, and without without guaranteed cuts and without guaranteed reforms and we have to make sure that we realize that yes, this is a victory because tea party patriots did shift the debate however there is so much more work to do in order to get the economy back on the right track and to restore the exceptionalism that is America.She doesn't say the bill is a victory, or is a defeat. She says that we (the american people, tea party patriots) have a victory.
As I said, I certainly don't think we need to agree with that assessment, although I agree with what she said.
Maybe tomorrow she'll make it clear what she thinks about the bill itself. She already pointed out many flaws in the bill in this interview, so clearly she isn't enamored with it. But for now, she seems a lot more upbeat about the outcome of the debt ceiling debate for conservatives than a lot of people here, you included.
Maybe that optimism is misplaced, but I don't think she was lying about it, I think she genuinely believes what she said.
I certainly agree with that, so long as you can also agree that “not a 100% genuine victory” does mean that it was at least SOME percentage of a genuine victory.
As I said, you’re a deranged idiot.
Just received the email message posted below from another deranged “let’s compromise to get stuff done” idiot. Demonstrates the idiocy we’re up against.
From my inbox:
“Why was the debate over the debt ceiling so rancorous? Why was consensus so hard to find? The answer lies in the election of 2010, in which the Tea Party movement emerged as the driving force behind the Republican Party. In that election, the winners were those candidates who were most dedicated to cutting federal spending and avoiding compromise with the President. Republican voters didn’t seek candidates who understood how to get a piece of legislation passed and enacted into law. Candidates who showed an ability to reach across the political divide and find consensus, were the losers. Winning candidates were those who declared themselves “sick of the ways of Washington, and promised to dig in their heels against everything they disagreed with. In previous election cycles, the public sought candidates who could “break the legislative gridlock” and “get things done.” Not in 2010. If you convinced voters that you would oppose everything Obama did, then you were assured a seat in congress. Such a strategy is quite clever, because you can still campaign on the premise that “Government doesn’t work,” and “Washington can’t get anything done,” even if you yourself are the reason that nothing gets done. Meanwhile, President Obama and the Democrats are tasked with the job of actually passing useful legislation. Unlike their Republican counterparts, Democrats are not rewarded for simply standing aside and bellowing, “What a Mess!” To be reelected, a Democrat must genuinely accomplish something.
So to be a successful Republican leader, all you have to do is declare that government is broken, and then, make darn sure it remains broken. And who gets the blame? Obama, whom the public elected as a wizard able to charm any opponent into submission, and if he fails at that, well, then, he’s considered a loser. And so, Republicans have one job: Keep up the negativity, until one of their own is elected president.”
Gridlock is far better than pouring gasoline on an out of control fire, which is exactly what this asinine “compromise” bill accomplished.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.