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 Palins speech.
As for the rest of itSarah 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 Bushs big-government growth of Medicare, the implementation of No Child Left Behind, and Dubyas other expansions of the domestic state. But what they still seem to forget is what made conservatives so tolerant of big government during that timean 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 Obamas wisdom in continuing Bushs exorbitant foreign policy. Yet few tea partiers are asking such questions, and according to Palin, Obamas primary weakness is that hes 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 hes tougher than he is today, and there wouldnt be as much passion to make sure that he doesnt 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 dont like would be tolerated so long as Obama increases the massive foreign spending conservatives do like? Isnt 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 mistakePipess 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 advocatingthe U.S. waging war simply to boost a politicians poll numbers.
But Palin didnt 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, Palins foreign policy views alone negate the entire tea party message. If the largest part of the U.S. budgetdefenseis 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 harms way halfway around the globe for no discernible reasonwhile just mindlessly assuming our government has Americas 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 governmentonly making noise about it. Just like Sarah Palin.
Still using that old Univision interview, huh? Nevermind she’s clarifieed herself several times since.
Such sophomoric crap, something only an undergrad might believe.
The same people, mindlessly beating the same drum. sometimes it’s hard to comprehend.
Actually, it does. Because if the Tea Party becomes defined by truthers, birthers, etc., one, the MSM (as it already has) will paint it as a bunch of loons, and two- that characterization will NEVER gain more members.
He should be called, ‘RecycleRabs’.
I'm curious, do you, as does Ron Paul, believe that the United States of America was the root cause of 9-11?
We've all figured you out by now. Your posting history has narrowed down to 2 subjects only....anti McCain and anti Palin, thus causing you to be irrelevant.
You really should broaden your horizons a little and maybe post an article or two about Obama or Rahm. Now that would be an interesting change up, but one in which I don't think you're capable of doing.
Hunter is a total nut case!
I thought that we wern’t supposed to post his crap here?
LOLOL! That's so perfect! Now all need to do is come up with a catchy name for his 4 fellow followers that he pings to all his recycled threads!
The more the threads against Sarah Palin does not make the attacks the truth.
Fringe sources especially, Truthers and anti war, loons
show a desperate person.
Gang of four is catchy though........
:-)
Well well, I see the anti-liberty Libertarians are still hard on in bashing Mrs. Palin.
Little wonder Paulies couldn’t get their boy to move beyond single digit support in real polls.
Jack Hunter needs to get a life.
Paul is going nowhere and just may be soon out of his seat as well.
You know what they say about arguing with whack-a-doodles, rabs.
And what's your point?
Care to find the post where I said that the U.S. government perpetrated the 9/11 attacks (i.e., the "Truther" conspiracy)?
Or am I just guilty by association (as mnehring claims at post 58)?
Because what ALL (CAluvdubya, post 66; rintense, posts 55, 64, 65; dirtboy, post 56; lakeshark, posts 62, 63; mnehring, post 58) have done thus far is simply attack me ad hominem, something that usually indicates that you really have no argument, or in other words, either all of you are mentally devoid or intellectually lazy (hence the need to fling mud from the start) or maybe just brainwashed.
Your posting history has narrowed down to 2 subjects only....anti McCain and anti Palin, thus causing you to be irrelevant.
And what's wrong with being anti-McCain? He is, after all, a RINO who is numero uno when it comes to campaign finance "reform" (muzzling conservatives), amnesty (one law for the sheep, another for the oxen), and cap-and-tax, and that's not even counting the fact that he voted yea on the fascist bailouts.
If being anti-RINO is "irrelevant" (CAluvdubya, post 66) then the entire Tea Party movement is "irrelevant"--and of course this lends credence to Mr. Hunter's claim in the original post that
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 governmentonly making noise about it.
As for Palin, I'll agree on this one with Sam Wurzelbacher aka Joe the Plumber, who's angry with Palin for going off and supporting the RINO McCain (nevermind my beef with her PAC's financial support for the RINOs Murkowski and Graham).
Those weren’t definitive anti-amnesty statements. McCain and Obama are against amnesty.
They are enforceable. The only thing lacking is the will.
It is, however, posssible to modify the laws to identify qualified individual who would be a benefit to the country, value the opportunity presented to them and are willing to make an enforceable commitment to be law abiding, tax paying, English speaking residents of the United States. Isn't that really the end goal?
No, the end goal is the rule of law and protection of our sovereignty. We bring in 1.2 million LEGAL IMMIGRANTS A YEAR and there are millions more waiting their turn overseas who have completed all of the paperwork. Rewarding people who have entered our country illegally by allowing them to stay and work here is unfair and just invites more illegals to come. We tried a "one-time" amnesty in 1986. It doesn't work.
It is interesting to note that in the past week, Joe the Plummer and Michelle Malkin have both been critical of Palin. Both were previously revered by most FReepers. Now they are ridiculed ;-)
The Democrats have their Obama, and now, the Republicans have their Palin.
A merit based immigration system that brings in the skills and talents to keep us competitive in the global economy;
Reduced immigration levels based on need and more closely approximating 500,000 immigrants a year recommended by the Jordan Commission;
Elimination of extended chain migration, i.e., family reunification, limiting it to the nuclear family;<./p>
Enforcement of existing immigration laws to reduce the current illegal alien population and limit future illegal immigration, i.e., attrition thru enforcement. Enforcement would include: (1) ending the job magnet; (2) increasing coordination at the federal level by eliminating barriers to information sharing among agencies; (3) leveraging state and local enforcement resources; (4) fully implementing the US-VISIT Program to track and deport visa overstays; and (5) make mandatory and improve such programs as E-Verify and 287 [g] authority to assist employers and law enforcement in identifying illegal aliens;
Elimination of birthright citizenship;
Ensure that anyone who enters this nation illegally is not rewarded by being permitted to stay and work here; i.e., no amnesty;
Streamline the processing and adjudication of immigration cases; and
Promote pro-immigrant measures that help newcomers assimilate and embrace the values and principles of our Founders and the Constitution.
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.