Posted on 01/25/2015 4:55:37 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
DES MOINES — As a chance to evaluate possible 2016 Republican presidential candidates, the Freedom Summit here in Des Moines was a solid success. Several potential candidates — Scott Walker, Ted Cruz, Chris Christie, and a few others — left the 10-hour political marathon with their prospects undeniably enhanced.
All that was good news for Republicans. But at the same time, more than a few GOP loyalists came away shaking their heads at the performance of a party star, former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, whose long, rambling, and at times barely coherent speech left some wondering what role she should play in Republican politics as the 2016 race begins in earnest.
Palin made news when she arrived in Iowa saying she is seriously considering a run for president. In an interview with ABC the day before coming to Iowa, Palin answered "of course" when asked if she is interested in running in 2016. Then, when she arrived at a Des Moines hotel late Friday evening, she told the Washington Post, "Who wouldn't be interested?" Asked to clarify, Palin told the paper, "You can absolutely say that I am seriously interested."
The news, given big play on the Drudge Report, heightened the anticipation of Palin's speech to the Freedom Summit. After all, there were still memories in the crowd of her rousing speech at the 2008 Republican convention. But when Palin took the stage, it was clear this would be no inspiring effort.
First, Palin embarked on an extended stream-of-consciousness complaint about media coverage of her decision to run in a half-marathon race in Storm Lake, Iowa in 2011. She then moved on to grumbling about coverage of a recent photo of her with a supporter who had made a sign saying "Fuc_ you Michael Moore" in reaction to the left-wing moviemaker's criticism of the film "American Sniper." Then it was on to Palin's objections about the social media ruckus over a picture of her six-year-old son Trig standing on the family's Labrador Retriever.
It was all quite petty, and yet the complaining took half of Palin's allotted time. She then proceeded to blow through her time limit with a free-association ramble on Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, the energy industry, her daughter Bristol, Margaret Thatcher, middle-class economics — "the man can only ride ya when your back is bent" — women in politics, and much more. It would be hard to say that Palin's 35-minute talk had a theme, but she did hint that she is interested in running, although there are no indications she has taken any actual steps in that direction.
"Long and disjointed," said one social conservative activist when asked for reaction. "A weird speech," said another conservative activist. "Terrible. Didn't make any sense."
"There was a certain coarseness to her that wasn't there before," said yet another social conservative who noted that some in the crowd were uncomfortable with Palin declarations like, "Screw the left in Hollywood!" (It's not that they like the left in Hollywood — just the opposite — but the crudeness of Palin's expressions turned them off.)
"I know she is popular, but it is hard to take her seriously given that performance," said Sam Clovis, the conservative Iowa college professor, radio commentator, and sometime political candidate. "Palin was a sad story Saturday. With every speech she gives, she gets worse and worse. If one were playing a political cliche drinking game, no one would have been sober after the first 15 minutes of an interminable ramble. It was really painful."
"I think she has a role in the conservative movement and in the party," Clovis continued, "but she needs to get serious about what it is she can contribute and accomplish."
To be fair, it should be noted that Clovis ran in the 2014 Republican Senate primary against Joni Ernst — a race in which Palin endorsed Ernst. (Citizens United, a sponsor of the Freedom Summit, endorsed Clovis.) But Clovis was by no way alone in faulting Palin's performance.
"Calling Gov. Palin's remarks bizarre and disjointed would be charitable," said a well-connected Iowa Republican. "Her shelf-life, even with the most conservative voters in our party, seems to be near the end. In a day filled with strong performances from likely candidates ranging from Scott Walker to Ted Cruz, her remarks were a distraction."
"It was a long and incoherent speech," added Craig Robinson, of the Iowa Republican blog. "At best, there were a few good one-liners." Robinson continued:
Of all the people I talked to about Palin's speech, only one person didn't have a negative reaction. That person basically said it was a typical Sarah Palin speech. It was received poorly by everyone else I spoke with. I'm not comfortable sharing everything I heard about the speech — it was that bad.
No offense to Gov. Palin, but I do think it is problematic to have someone give a speech like that in the midst of a string of serious speeches by people who are seriously thinking about running for president. Palin made a guy like Trump look like a serious presidential candidate today. Incredible.
By the time Palin finished speaking, it was hard for anyone to believe she truly is "seriously interested" in running for president. Palin followed former executive Carly Fiorina, who gave a well-received speech that left many in the audience wanting to hear more. Like any serious would-be candidate, Fiorina had obviously taken care to prepare the best speech she could. The contrast with Palin could not have been clearer.
The experience leaves Iowa Republicans with a lot to think about. Yes, Palin is still a draw. Yes, conservatives still empathize with her over the beating she took from the media in 2008. But if there is indeed nothing behind her "seriously interested" talk — and it appears there is not — should she be included in events leading up to the 2016 caucuses? A lot of GOP activists may come to agree with one of those well-connected Iowa Republicans quoted above, who remarked, "The sooner these forums in Iowa focus on those actually running, the better."
I see that York uses the term "social conservative" at least twice in the excerpt alone.
If "social conservative" is code for "Christian Republican," then I wish they'd just talk straight and say "Christian Republican" and leave the word "conservative" out of it. Because what the phrase "social conservative" REALLY means is someone who's okay with government tyranny as long as it aims to control people to refrain from Christian-defined sins and to engage in Christian behaviors such as charity. This is as opposed to "social liberal" tyranny, which uses government tyranny to force people to refrain from such "social liberal" sins as peacefully, civilly ostracizing open homosexuals in their schools, workplaces, communities, military, and which uses government tyranny to force people to tolerate and fund abortion, state-administered "charity," etc.
A "social conservative" uses government as liberally and frequently as a Democrat. In their case, the meaning/use of the word "conservative" is as skewed as the word "gay" to describe a homosexual.
An actual CONSERVATIVE in the straight use of the word, believes in the conservative use of government -- on the same working definition of the word that applies to a woman who dresses "conservatively" by using restraint in the fashions she wears, or how a cook who uses salt "conservatively" in cooking, uses restraint in how much salt he puts in the food.
A conservative in government by actual definition uses government with restraint. That is what "conservative" actually means, without code.
"Social conservative," my eye. What that really means is a "Republican who is comfortable using government tyranny to enforce Christian mores by punishing sins as crimes and usurping Christian duties such as charity from individuals, and relegating them to the state."
Just because someone is a Christian, doesn't mean he or she is a "conservative."
As long as the political definition of "conservative" has two such diametrically opposed meanings, as long as people tolerate phrases to serve as code for something else, a practice indication need for deception, then any kind of unity among "conservatives" will be elusive.
God bless Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, Jim Robinson, and America.
You can always tell who they’re worried about.
They knew McCain wasn’t an issue for them. It was Governor Palin they were freaked about.
Exhibit A: Mike Huckabee.
I guess that the Dims are not the only Low Information Voters.
Trump can't even finish a sentence let alone make a point other than the Chinese are killing us.
Ms. Palin is still on my list of possible candidates.
Why?
She has enough experience.
She was born in America, and has First Nation roots. Can’t get more ‘born here’ than that!
As it has been said, “The Left mocks and scandalizes what it fears most.”
Interesting. Thank you.
It was not a policy speech.
I like him...he’s entertaining.
She’ll catch all the libs’ most hyper, viscous and furious arrows for Ted as long as they think she’s running. Plus, she needs some PAC and speaking money. This gives her the opportunity to beat up the Rinos and give voice conservative ideas.
But, alas, I doubt she’s serious about running for Prez...this time.
You’re right!
BTTT
Not in the headlines, or here at FR? I spend too much time here as it is but concentrate on foreign policy and the military, including those who are in power to make decisions. I was truly hoping someone who supports her would create a thread of what she has actually done for the nation since being hand cuffed and thrown under the bus by the McCain fiasco.
I did hear that she speaks for people running for office but is there a way to tell whether it is her influence or would they have won because everybody is sick of the track we have moving down?
Just being realistic.
Ask ex-Governor Parnell of Alaska if her opinion matters.
Normally we come to Free Republic to get information. Why don’t you post exactly how Palin got the state of Alaska to vote for a new governor with links to the information and actually discuss and defend what it is you think you know.
Why don't you try to keep up, or go back to DU?
wow. LOL I posted to DU once and was promptly banned.
Nice chattin’ with ya.
I hope this is as good as it looks. I was hoping someone would do this.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3251390/posts?page=70#70
Enjoy!
bookmark
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.