Palin gives keynote speech at 'tea party' gathering
 

NASHVILLE, Tenn. – Sarah Palin, in a speech that was short on ideas but big on enthusiasm, took aim at President Barack Obama and the Democrats, telling a gathering of "tea party" activists that America is ripe for another revolution.

Noting his party's dismal showing in elections since Obama moved into the White House a year ago with talk of hope and promises of change, Palin asked the gathering: "How's that hope-y, change-y stuff workin' out for you?"

Her audience waved flags and erupted in cheers during multiple standing ovations as the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee gave the keynote address Saturday at the first national convention of the "tea party" coalition. It's an antiestablishment, grass-roots network motivated by anger over the growth of government, budget-busting spending and Obama's policies.
Palin's 45-minute talk was filled with her trademark folksy jokes and amounted to a pep talk for the coalition and promotion of its principles.
The speech also was rife with criticism for Obama and the Democrats who control Congress, but delivered with a light touch. Aside from broad conservative principles like lower taxes and a strong national defense, the speech was short on Palin's own policy ideas that typically indicate someone is seriously laying the groundwork to run for the White House.
Indeed, Republican observers say she's seemingly done more lately to establish herself as a political celebrity focused on publicity rather than a political candidate focused on policy.

Catering to her crowd, Palin talked of limited government, strict adherence to the Constitution, and the "God-given right" of freedom. She said the "fresh, young and fragile" movement is the future of American politics because it's "a ground-up call to action" to both major political parties to change how they do business.

"America is ready for another revolution!" she told the gathering.
Palin suggested the movement should remain leaderless and cautioned against allowing it to be defined by any one person.

"Let us not get bogged down in the small squabbles. Let us get caught up in the big ideas," she said, though she offered few of her own.

The former Alaska governor, who resigned from office last summer before completing her first term, didn't indicate whether her political future would extend beyond cable news punditry and paid speeches to an actual presidential candidacy.

All she offered was a smile when a moderator asking her questions used the phrase "President Palin." That prompted most in the audience to stand up and chant "Run, Sarah, Run!"

But, given the plethora of attacks that Palin leveled at Obama, she seemed like she was already running against him. And, perhaps, as an independent.
She talked little about the Republican Party and encouraged "tea party"-aligned candidates to compete in GOP primaries.

link

GCers as a whole what are your thoughts on the tea party movement?

Is your homepage Yahoo? You always post stories that I have just seen before coming to GC, lol

From the title and preview to this, my mental image was something like:

"Sarah Palin goes to a ladies tea in Tennessee, overturns a plate of cucumber sandwiches and gives a highly inappropriate political speech - Southern women clutch pearls."

I kind of liked my version better...

I like Sarah Palin, but I found your image hilarious, especially the part of Southern women clutching their pearls lol! Thank you for sharing :)

On a serious note, I really enjoyed her speech. However, it is important to note that Tea Party folks are more than just disgruntled conservatives. There are many disgruntled democrats and independents in that movement as well because neither party has been holding to its principles. I would like to see one of the more conservative democrats be a keynote speaker at one of those events.

I'll agree with this - while I don't see myself ever attending a Tea Party, I know of some pretty sensible, intelligent people who have attended. There are some crazies, of course, just like any large gathering.

I am not a Sarah Palin fan, though. I'm hoping she becomes politically irrelevant by the time the 2012 election comes around, or that quitting as Governor of Alaska ends up hurting her election prospects.

I saw her speech and I actually enjoyed it. I will agree that it didn't have many definitive strategies included in it, but I found it entertaining and informative. I would NEVER vote for her for President, but I think that since things have died down with the election and her private life, she has done well in the spotlight.

And during the question and answer portion following the speech, she said that she would love if people from all areas of the political spectrum became involved in the movement.

I think that whatever she chose to do, she was screwed. Naturally people saw her leaving office as a political nosedive, but the alternative was to stay in a state that is clearly a VERY good distance from Washington, DC (and the rest of the continental United States). Running a presidential campaign while in Alaska would have been EXTREMELY difficult.

And I hope they are! And not just because I don't agree with many of the things that are occurring in DC today, but because it's great to see people finally standing up for what they believe in! The people of this country, for so long, had simply sat on the sidelines and hoped for the best. I'm glad that people, once again, truly feel the need to be heard.

I'd take the Tea Party seriously if they didn't have Sarah Palin as a keynote speaker. Maybe she's a nice lady and all, but she's not Commander in Chief material. I mean, she's just fine at giving speeches and making folksy statements, but running a country requires a different skill set.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the lady's electable. Does anyone think she actually has the skill set or organizational ability to follow through with making any of her stated policies into reality?

Well, that's life. Part of being a Presidential contender is that the circumstances have to be right, and there are certain things that you can't change. If you're in an area where it's tough to run a campaign, or where you don't get a lot of national attention...well, that's life.

If being in Alaska cost her a chance to be President...so be it. That's the way things worked out. But, I think it did her a lot more harm to leave office the way she did than it would have for her to just serve out the term and deal with the logistics.

I wouldn't have blamed her if she served out her term and declined to run for re-election. That would have been a completely different story.

This is my thing. I just don't have a lot of confidence in her skill set, organizational ability, or her intelligence to be President. There's something to be said for surrounding yourself with the right people, but I don't even think she could do that.

I think her best role is what she's doing now: political commentator and conservative "activist." (I also think it's Mike Huckabee's best role as well) I hope that's the role she chooses going into the election. I just don't think she's good for the Republican party, and she represents some issues I as a Republican have with certain factions of the party.

Trouble is, the folks they surround themselves with these days are probably nothing more than a chorus of yes-men. And in some places, vapid campaigns based upon platitude and being folksy is enough to get you elected.

Here in Oklahoma, where we tend to be a lot more conservative and a lot less educated than most other electorates [that's the only way I can understand someone like her having any sort of success], we recently had a U.S. Rep (Mary Fallin) run commercials saying she stood for "Faith, family and freedom," and based on the fact that she had some name recognition (was Lt. Gov. for a long time) and the mere fact that she was a Republican, she ran away with the election. Now she's about to do the same thing, but this time, she'll be in a position to do some real damage -- she's running for Governor.

My observation as to local politics (and I think it translates nationally) is this -- politics has become less and less about ideas and more and more about name brand promotion. The key is not to actually have ideas people agree with, it's to make people think you have the same ideas they do without ever directly communicating anything. This is accomplished by making folksy common-sense statements, running on platitudes, and above all else, making oneself look like the least-bad choice.

I think the Tea Party concept in itself is meritorious, but it's inevitable that it'll be completely hijacked by special interests at some point. Look for an announcement very soon that 'true conservatism' really means tort reform, increased military spending and deregulation of securities (actually, I think the Heritage Foundation probably beat me to the punch there).

I don't know if I'd go that far. To be sure there are going to be some "yes-men" in the crowd. But, there are politicians who surround themselves with smart, capable people. There are some good people working on campaigns, both national and local.

I think that could go for any local or national election around the country. It takes so much money to run a campaign these days, let alone a successful one, that candidates have to appeal to those areas of the electorate where 1) they could get votes and 2) they could raise money. If that means focusing on one or two issues and glossing over the others, that's what they'll do.

There's such a thin margin of error with the process, especially in the day of the 24 hour news cycle. If you make a mistake of fact, or you go too far one way or the other, you're done. Look at Howard Dean - he had a lot of momentum, got too excited after a primary, and his campaign was finished. (that may be oversimplifying things, but you get my point)

Well, the Tea Party movement's already-specious character (great concept, dubious execution) really isn't helped by having Palin involved.

I mean, her run as AK Governor really went directly against what the Tea Party portrays as its central tenets . . . also, there's the "not that smart, even for a politician" thing.

This smacks of a publicity move by the party - which is yet another step toward "same ol' politics" by the Tea Party.

Trust me, I'm not upset or complaing, "It's not fair!" regarding Palin's chances to be president. I was simply stating that, for the most part, it was a Catch 22 for her. Either decision would probably have helped and hurt her equally.

And no matter what, she doesn't have what it takes to be president.

The question is, will they be more than a spoiler group a la Perot's Reform Party.

This.

It hurt her as far as I'm concerned as a voter. I was a fan; not so much anymore.

As far as the Tea Party stuff, I'm not sure how legitimate the convention was in the eyes of Tea Partiers anyway. I think it ended up going pretty well based on the reports I've read, but the organization seems markedly different than the organization of other Tea Party events, from what I can tell from right wing sites.

I sincerely do not mean this to be a dick, so if you don't mind me asking . . . why?

Reading somewhat between the lines, this event was a fundraiser.

For what? No clue.

Does Palin have a PAC? I hadn't heard of one, but I could be wrong.

I don't think so, though. Even if you allow for the fact that Alaska is removed from the national political scene, I think she would have been better off staying in office. There is no positive way to spin the fact that she left office, and the fact that she blamed political gridlock made it even worse.

I'm sure she accepted a speaking fee, but I doubt this is her PAC. The event claims to have had 600 attendees who paid $549 registration fees. Now, I don't know much about cost, but that sounds like the beginnings of a pretty successful event if the purpose is fundraising.

I don't know if Palin will be their choice. The movement claims to be more about ideology than propping up anyone in particular. I guess we'll see, won't we?

I'm not finding any committee listed at the REC yet.

On Diane Rehm this morning, the guy who organized the Tea Party convention said that, if the election were now, Palin would indeed be his choice.

I heard that.

I actually agree with this movement on a lot of levels. Who they choose as their 'standard bearer' (I think that's the job description they were discussing on the DR show) is going to be determinative as to whether they're taken seriously.

Just hearing the adjectives used to describe Palin by this otherwise seemingly bright individual gave me reason to think that this movement may be a lot more about personal politics than it cares to admit.

The tea party movement started out as non-partisan, moved to multi-partisan, and is very quickly becoming partisan (the part of the republican party most likely to break off/force a split)

Standbearer was indeed the description he was using, to contrast it with a leader/director and to emphasize the grassroots nature of the movement. It will be interesting to see how that plays out, because too much grassrootedness could impede the organization necessary to do anything more than be a spoiler, I'd wager.

And I think you may be right about the personal politics. I have to say, the interview with the convention organizer this morning on the DR show didn't leave me with a good impression, at least in the sense of focus or ability to do anything more than give a forum for venting.

I am as conservative as they come, and I agree with this (referring to Palin.)

OK, but let's think about what we voted into office instead. A nice man who is EXCELLENT at giving speeches, but his resume was starkly THIN as well. No executive experience at all, no experience in the private sector, never had to meet a payroll, and hadn't even completed his first term as senator. Oh, he's good at reading a teleprompter, but evidently hasn't come across the word CORPSMAN in his first rate education. (When you mispronounce something THREE TIMES in a speech, it's obvious you aren't familiar with the word.) But he is now our Commander in Chief. I'll bet that reassured our armed servicemen (and women).

Now don't tell me I am being petty about the corpsman controversy (which the MSM conveniently ignores.) Dan Quayle was pilloried for misspelling potato and totally sidelined for any further political aspirations. If Sarah Palin had mispronounced the word, you would still be hearing it every morning on MSNBC.

But...Palin quit her job as governor, so if she ever runs for any office again, don't you think that her resigning will be among THE FIRST things that will come to people's mind?

Forget mispronounciations!

Obama = Editor of the Harvard Law Review
Palin = 'C' Student at the University of Idaho, B.S. in Journalism.

One is just slightly more impressive than the other, dontchathink?

:rolleyes:

You're not being "petty" in a true sense - instead, you're begging the question. You're simply stating these "qualifications" without any evidence that a.) he doesn't have the ability to do them, b.) experience demonstrates ability, c.) the qualifications even matter, and so on.

So yeah - I'd rather you were being petty than fallacious.

Yeah, I wouldn't exactly call his resume thin: Editor of Harvard Law Review, holder of degrees from two Ivy League institutions, essentially could have had a federal clerkship if he wanted (look at quotes from Judge Abner Mikva), Professor at University of Chicago Law School, civil rights attorney, State Senator, then US Senator.

I'm not a big fan of President Obama, but it's a stretch to call his resume "thin." He did some pretty impressive things before his election as President.

I agree 100%.

(Didn't it look she was wearing a bump-it or extensions or something? Reminded me of when women would wear a "fall" but you could still tell that it wasn't all their real hair.)

LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktTFtqK_XwQ

You mean going back to the last Presidential election when she was first selected for the ticket? That's when I'm talking about. I mean, I liked her through the election as well. I wish she had just retreated from the limelight then and worked on her political weaknesses. Now, I'm just kind of tired of her, and I don't really need whatever it is she offers.

I suppose I excused most of her faults because I think she comparable to most politicians but criticized and scrutinized more harshly, and I simply preferred her persona to that of Obama and/or Biden. Regular gal hockey mom works on me better than nuanced, much-farther-left than I am Chicago cool guy or verbally incontinent lifelong politician from Delaware.

I think some of why I liked her is just a matter of personal psychology, but most of what I knew about her official policies and political actions in Alaska as Governor, I liked okay. Alaska brings some problems to the table as a state if you want to carefully examine the fiscal relationship between citizens and the federal government. But there wasn't much that Palin actually did that would have bothered me had she been the governor of Georgia (that I can think of right now anyway).

ETA: Basically, I liked what I knew about how she governed Alaska. Troopergate and Todd's nefarious influence didn't keep me up at night.

Great....and now Angela McGlowan is running for the Mississippi HoR seat.


smh

No offence, but I hope she decides to live Maryland if she's elected.

Well she's from Mississippi...so it only makes sense.

I guess it depends on what job you are applying for. His resume is impressive. . . but I still maintain his RELEVANT experience was lacking when he was running to be elected CEO of the only superpower in the world. The man may have had a world class education and been distinguished in legal circles, but would you hire a CEO of a multitrillion dollar operation who had had NO executive experience? Carter, Reagan, Clinton and Bush II were all governors, and Bush I was Vice President. What executive experience did Obama have? None that I can see from the list provided above. NONE. He also, as I mentioned earlier, has had no private sector experience or had first hand experience as an employer. Pretty dicey place for on-the-job training.

I suppose you think his merits also qualified him for the Nobel Peace prize?

If President of the United States is such a singular position, then why would anything be adequate preparation?

Also, you really think ARKANSAS is similar to a "multi-trillion-dollar corporation" in any way? Come on. The comparison you're making is surface-level - the day-to-day management of Federal "employees" is incidental at best for the POTUS. Budget-balancing is remarkably different at a Federal level than at a corporate level. The position is much more about ideas and personality than any specific "CEO" skill, and you've said nothing to prove otherwise. Like, at all. Just because it is called the Executive Branch does not mean that the requirements are the same as a corporate executive.

Oh - GWB had a LOT of private-sector experience . . . and he was a miserable failure, both in the private sector and as President. Reagan's tenure as California governor is hilariously specious to cite, because according to your own logic, he was wholly and completely unqualified for the job when he got it.

What experience is "relevant" to being the most powerful man on the planet? Being the most powerful man in Little Rock? Come on.

Absolutely non sequitur - does not follow at all, and shows just how awkward your line of thinking has become . . . the guy you're talking to is a fairly hard-core Republican.