Posted on 02/16/2010 8:10:38 AM PST by rabscuttle385
During her speech to the first ever National Tea Party Convention in Nashville on Saturday, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin discouraged the very idea of a national organization, urging the movement to stay leaderless and decentralized. This was the most important and valuable part of Palin’s speech.
As for the rest of it–Sarah sounded pretty much like the same old Republican Party.
Despite the many independents that make up the movement, the tea parties in large part represent a long overdue reexamination of conservative principles. A big-spending Democratic president seems to have awakened grassroots conservatives enough to finally lament the big spending of the last Republican president, and plenty of incumbents from both parties face voter backlash in 2010 and possibly beyond, particularly if they supported bailouts, stimulus, national healthcare, or other massive debt-incurring legislation.
The tea partiers are right to acknowledge and denounce Bush’s big-government growth of Medicare, the implementation of No Child Left Behind, and Dubya’s other expansions of the domestic state. But what they still seem to forget is what made conservatives so tolerant of big government during that time—an almost religious preoccupation with supporting the Iraq War.
Today, defense spending remains the largest part of the federal budget, dwarfing the bailouts, stimulus, healthcare, and other government programs that offend tea partiers most, and President Obama is still expanding that budget and escalating our wars. One would think cost-conscious voters would at least question Obama’s wisdom in continuing Bush’s exorbitant foreign policy. Yet few tea partiers are asking such questions, and according to Palin, Obama’s primary weakness is that he’s not enough like George W. Bush.
Following up her tea party speech on “Fox News Sunday,” Palin said of Obama, “If he decided to toughen up and do all that he can to secure our nation and our allies, I think people would perhaps shift their thinking a little bit and decide, Well, maybe he’s tougher than …he is today, and there wouldn’t be as much passion to make sure that he doesn’t serve another four years.”
What is Palin trying to say? That tea party anger towards Obama would lessen if the president was to “toughen up,” becoming even more intent on waging war? Does Palin believe that the massive domestic spending conservatives don’t like would be tolerated so long as Obama increases the massive foreign spending conservatives do like? Isn’t this exactly what happened under Bush?
At a time when a more radicalized, grassroots conservative base could feasibly be persuaded to question government spending as a whole; Palin seems intent on leading the populist Right back into the same old, big government, pro-war, any-war mindset. Conservatives as thoughtful as columnist George Will and as bombastic as radio host Michael Savage have asked recently if American dollars and lives are worth spending in Afghanistan. But for Palin, still, there is no question.
The necessity of endless war and the gargantuan government needed to sustain it is also not in question for the neoconservatives. When uber-neocon Daniel Pipes wrote an article for National Review Online last week called “How to Save the Obama Presidency: Bomb Iran,” the alleged purpose of the piece was to give the commander in chief some pointers on how to keep his command in 2012. But make no mistake—Pipes’s main concern is that somebody bombs Iran, regardless of which president or party. Pat Buchanan responded to Pipes in his syndicated column, asking if Obama would indeed play what the Buchanan calls “the war card,” something presidents have done in the past to boost their popularity. The difference is, traditional conservative Buchanan was clearly chastising what the neoconservative Pipes was advocating—the U.S. waging war simply to boost a politician’s poll numbers.
But Palin didn’t make the distinction, telling Fox News, “Say [Obama] played, and I got this from Buchanan, reading one of his columns the other day. Say he played the war card. Say he decided to declare war on Iran… things would dramatically change if he decided to toughen up and do all that he can to secure our nation…”
If the tea parties are supposed to represent a break from the big spending of both parties, Palin’s foreign policy views alone negate the entire tea party message. If the largest part of the U.S. budget—defense—is to be expanded indefinitely in the name of “toughness,” how can grassroots conservatives argue against bailouts, stimulus, and national healthcare, each of which costs much less? Real “toughness” might include not just using the same old Bush jargon, but a serious cost/benefit analysis of the U.S.’s habit of putting soldiers in harm’s way halfway around the globe for no discernible reason—while just mindlessly assuming our government has America’s best interests at heart.
Above all, real conservative “toughness” might require a real questioning of government at all levels. Unfortunately, conservatives whose attachment to the warfare state remains every bit as passionate as liberals’ attachment to the welfare state, continue to prove they have no serious intention of dismantling big government–only making noise about it. Just like Sarah Palin.
Bob, you truly have lost it, you are now siding with antiwar nutbars in your efforts to attack Palin.
Glad to see you’ve joined the anti-war paultards.
LOL, that coming from people who were for the war before they were against it? Palin has been consistent on this issue.
Oh, and Bob, you moron, amnesty was not the subject of the original post, the defense budget and the WOT is. Show me where on this thread I have commented on the amnesty change of subject that was introduced.
I see. If I’m a fiscally conscious conservative who is concerned about the effects of defense spending on taxes and budget deficits, I’m an “antiwar nutbar”.
And if I have questions about Palin’s readiness for the oval office I’m a mysoginist and I hate woman.
And if I’m concerned that Palin’s popularity has more to do with religion/evangelisism than politics I’m a Christian basher.
And if I take up any position at odds with the owner of the website I’m a lib troll and anti-FReeper.
Do you have any idea how ridiculous and hysterical you sound?
Bob, national defense is something the fedgov is SUPPOSED to be doing.
But there is just one word that describes you to a 'T' lately - a@@hole.
“Oh, and Bob, you moron, amnesty was not the subject of the original post, the defense budget and the WOT is. Show me where on this thread I have commented on the amnesty change of subject that was introduced.”
Fair enough. Would you like to comment on post #3 or just ignore it like all the Palinistas do?
Where do you stand on Palin’s position that some form of amnesty will be needed to address the immigation prblem?
Simple Pentagon good, Department of whateverelse bad.
I will wait and see what Palin says when she is not part of the McCain presidential campaign. Do you really think she was going to stray far from McCain’s viewpoints on immigration while being interviewed as his VP candidate during the 2008 campaign?
“Bob, national defense is something the fedgov is SUPPOSED to be doing.”
Uhh, okay. What’s your point?
That whining about fiscal conservativism when it comes to national defense - something that the fedgov is SUPPOSED to be doing - is as stupid as any one of your other recent posts.
The second half sucked - one speaker after another praising GW Bush (best president mexico ever had!), his limitless spending and his endless wars.
As far as Palin goes, I didn't like some of the things she was saying during the campaign... she seemed weak on immigration and very pro-war, but I was willing to cut her some slack because I figured she was just parroting McCain's positions. I don't even hold it against her for endorsing McCain - you dance with the one who brought you. He put her on the national stage and she's grateful to him for doing so.
Unfortunately, it's starting to look like she shares the same foreign policy outlook as GWB, McCain and obama - the idiotic neocon BS belief that the US has the right to intervene in the affairs of any nation (as long as it's weak and seemingly defenseless), anywhere, any time and for any reason.
Lest we all forget, she was one half of the GOP presidential ticket that was advocating military confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia over an event taking place on their border, of no strategic interest to the US, and on the wrong damn side too!
“I will wait and see what Palin says when she is not part of the McCain presidential campaign.”
Well, we’ve all been waiting for over a year. Do you think she hasn’t had the opportunity or venue to do so, you know, with that busy speech and Fox commentator schedule?
Jeez, you're turning into a bigger moron with each passing day.
“That whining about fiscal conservativism when it comes to national defense...”
You know, I’m just going to let that on sit out there and ferment for a while.
>Are you advocating non-enforcement of valid U.S. law?
That would be horrible!
Therefore I suggest that you turn yourelf in immediately. I guarantee you have missed a stoplight (if even by a hair), or nudged an IRS bill (if even by a couple bucks) or missed some obscure city ordinance. Therefore, since all laws are of equal value, off to the hoosegow with you!
Yes, we must immediately imprison 11 million illegals in camps, then drive them on a Bataan march across the Rio.
Yeah, and maybe you could contemplate how much you are channeling the libs who opposed the cost of Reagan's defense buildup in the 1980s, you moron.
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.