Sarah Palin's Tea Party Speech

[Pyotr]

I watched Sarah Palin's speech from the Nashville convention and it left me pretty disgusted. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. There are four main things I found wrong with Sarah's speech.

First and foremost: Sarah is trying to tie social conservatism to the Tea Party movement (which would destroy it).

Second: While Sarah says she favors market based solutions, she also complains about Obama's government being too friendly towards Wall Street and big companies! She brags about taking on "big oil." This is the same contradiction that lost the election for John McCain. Sarah seems to be unaware of how far from the free market McCain is.

Third: Sarah is encouraging people to be anti-intellectual. She believes the answer to Obama's brand of intellectualism is to reject intellectualism completely and replace it with faith and common sense. America needs Jesus to ride in to town in his common sense pickup truck and set us straight. Of course the reality is that Obama is anti-intellectual himself. Tea Party people desperately need an intellectual defense of individual rights.

Fourth: Sarah says selflessness is the ideal.

This is nowhere near the ideal speech for the Tea Party convention. It is nothing more than the same crap that ruined the Republican party and made it easy for the post-modernists to take over America. But Sarah is blissfully unaware of that. She rightly criticizes the left for not recognizing that their policies are what's alienating people but conservatives like Sarah have a similar problem. They believe their failure in 2008 was from being too light with the social conservative stuff and they think the answer is to double down. I hope the Tea Party movement can survive Sarah.

[TheEgoist]

As someone who really tied for a few months to make the Tea Party "movement" worth a damn, I can quite honestly say that it is unrecoverable from the amount of populism + Republican-seizure. It's been turned into everything it should have never been.

[Schtank]

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

[Weston]

America needs Jesus to ride in to town in his common sense pickup truck and set us straight.

I reject that statement; pickup trucks are the best personal vehicles available.

I agree with your post though, as it's become obvious that the Republican party has taken hold of and ruined the tea party movement. What we need is another movement of the same spirit and method, but with a name the Republicans would never go for. Like, the "Drug-using Sodomy Movement." That would keep it clean.

[ENikolai]

I enjoyed the blooper where she said something like "Alaska is the last best hope of humanity."

[freestyle]

I watched Sarah Palin's speech from the Nashville convention and it left me pretty disgusted. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. There are four main things I found wrong with Sarah's speech.

First and foremost: Sarah is trying to tie social conservatism to the Tea Party movement (which would destroy it).

I've only read the text... I'm not a fan of her sing-songy speaking voice. ( http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/s...artykeynote.htm ). Which part of it did she do what you claim here? Specifically, where does she tie the Tea Party to social issues?

Second: While Sarah says she favors market based solutions, she also complains about Obama's government being too friendly towards Wall Street and big companies! She brags about taking on "big oil." This is the same contradiction that lost the election for John McCain. Sarah seems to be unaware of how far from the free market McCain is.

I didn't see any mention your quoted "big oil"... Do I have an incorrect transcript of the speech?

Washington has now replaced private irresponsibility with public irresponsibility. The list of companies and industries that the government is crowding out and bailing out and taking over, it continues to grow. First it was the banks, mortgage companies, financial institutions, then automakers. Soon, if they had their way, health care, student loans.

Today, in the words of Congressman Paul Ryan, The 700 billion dollar "TARP has morphed into crony capitalism at its worse." And it's becoming a "slush fund" for the Treasury Department's favorite big players, just as we had been warned about.3 And while people on Main Street look for jobs, people on Wall Street -- they're collecting billions and billions in your bailout bonuses. Among the top 17 companies that received your bailout money, 92 percent of the senior officers and directors -- they still have their good jobs.

I assume this is the section that bothers you. I don't think any Objectivists favor companies using political pull to get their hands on public monies. I don't like the term "crony" capitalism because cronyism has nothing to do with capitalism. We need more people speaking of capitalism as what it is...VOLUNTARY and non-coerced interaction by individuals making their own private decisions about what they buy and sell.

Third: Sarah is encouraging people to be anti-intellectual. She believes the answer to Obama's brand of intellectualism is to reject intellectualism completely and replace it with faith and common sense. America needs Jesus to ride in to town in his common sense pickup truck and set us straight. Of course the reality is that Obama is anti-intellectual himself. Tea Party people desperately need an intellectual defense of individual rights.

Doesn't she speak of "elitists," as opposed to intellectuals, in this speech? Where are you getting the anti-intellectual stuff.

She definitely does not come off as an intellectual, that's for sure. And the notes on the hand thing is just begging to be ridiculed. But, again, I'm at a loss to where you got this "anti-intellectual" impression from this speech.

Fourth: Sarah says selflessness is the ideal.

I'm assuming you're referring to this?

Opponents of this message, they're seeking to marginalize this movement. They want to paint us as ideologically extreme and the counterpoint to liberal intolerance and outrageous conspiracy theorists aimed at our own government and unethical shameless tactics like considering a candidate's children fair game.

But unlike the elitists who denounce this movement -- they just don't want to hear the message -- I've traveled across this great country and I've talked to the patriotic men and women who make up the Tea Party movement. And they are good and kind and selfless and they are deeply concerned about our country. And today I ask only this: Let's make this movement a tribute to their good example and make it worthy of their hard work and their support.

I seriously cannot understand this woman's ability to attract such hatred of her. She is giving Ayn Rand a run for her money in that category. With Rand it make sense because she so directly attacks and exposes the fundamental evil philosophy of the left. Palin leaves me feeling indifferent towards her. She doesn't come off as particularly threatening, yet she is a lightning rod for some reason.

I assume you are probably basing your opinions on past comments and your general dislike for her. She is nothing near my opinion of an ideal candidate or politician, but she definitely angers the right people for the most part. Of course Objectivists reject any of her religious or altruist rhetoric, as it should be rejected. But she really, really gets under the skin of the left... they have made her very powerful, and I still just don't get it.

Again, here's the link to the speech for anyone who wants to Objectively critique its content: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/s...artykeynote.htm

[Pyotr]

Which part of it did she do what you claim here? Specifically, where does she tie the Tea Party to social issues?

It was this paragraph that bugged me: "That is what we're fighting for. It is what we are fighting about. It is what we believe in and that's what this movement is all about. When people are willing and to meet halfway and stand up for common sense solutions and values, then we want to work with them. And in that spirit, I applaud Independents and Democrats like Bart Stupak who stood up to tough partisan pressure and he wanted to protect the sanctity of life and the rights of the soon to be born. I applaud him for that."

Maybe I overreacted but I took that as implying that the pro-life stance should be part of the Tea Party.

Also, during the Q & A session Sarah was asked what we should do when conservatives have taken back the government. One of the things she said was, "It would be wise of us to start seeking divine intervention again in this country so that we can be safe and secure and prosperous again." She also said she wants our politicians to be openly religious.

I didn't see any mention your quoted "big oil"... Do I have an incorrect transcript of the speech?

Sarah said, "The Administration and Congress should do what we did up there in Alaska when the good old boys started making back room deals that were benefiting big oil and not the citizens of the state."

I seriously cannot understand this woman's ability to attract such hatred of her.

I don't hate Sarah, I'm just very disappointed with her and her zealotry scares me. I wanted to like her at first because she does throw some funny zingers at the left.

[freestyle]

Also, during the Q & A session Sarah was asked what we should do when conservatives have taken back the government. One of the things she said was, "It would be wise of us to start seeking divine intervention again in this country so that we can be safe and secure and prosperous again." She also said she wants our politicians to be openly religious.

Well, wow... I didn't see the q & a... that is a simply moronic thing to say.

The Stupak thing doesn't bother me at all... I don't want public funding of much of anything, abortion included.

I don't think I have ever heard her say that we should rely on divine intervention. I'd like to see her challenged on that and how it jives with "common sense".

[Mister A]

I seriously cannot understand this woman's ability to attract such hatred of her. She is giving Ayn Rand a run for her money in that category. With Rand it make sense because she so directly attacks and exposes the fundamental evil philosophy of the left. Palin leaves me feeling indifferent towards her. She doesn't come off as particularly threatening, yet she is a lightning rod for some reason.

The irreducable primary among all the left's boogiemen is the threat they pose to the statist agenda. When you're an anti-conceptual drone who's traded his consciousness for pack approval, you'd viscerally hate whomever your tribal elders tell you to hate and memorized talking points are adequate justification.

Not that I find Palin that appealing myself. Spare the psychologizing and let the wannabe-tyrants expose themselves in pursuit of their bloodlust.

[Black Wolf]

The irreducable primary among all the left's boogiemen is the threat they pose to the statist agenda. When you're an anti-conceptual drone who's traded his consciousness for pack approval, you'd viscerally hate whomever your tribal elders tell you to hate and memorized talking points are adequate justification.

Not that I find Palin that appealing myself. Spare the psychologizing and let the wannabe-tyrants expose themselves in pursuit of their bloodlust.

People were against Palin because they believed she was responsible for the law saying women have to pay for a rape kit. Also, because she's a christian and she talks funny.

The internets that I occupy are very liberal, so I gotta know this stuff.

Edited February 15, 2010 by Black Wolf

[Maximus]

I enjoyed the blooper where she said something like "Alaska is the last best hope of humanity."

That's because it's too cold there for the zombies to function.

[RussK]

People were against Palin because they believed she was responsible for the law saying women have to pay for a rape kit. Also, because she's a christian and she talks funny.

The internets that I occupy are very liberal, so I gotta know this stuff.

When she said the phrase about "hopey, changey stuff" I almost puked in my mouth, and I couldn't watch any longer. So I only saw about five seconds of the speech.

[Maximus]

I can't stand to hear her speak.

[Alexandros]

Then you better sit down, because there seems to be no end in sight for her reign of terror.

[Andrew Grathwohl]

[Thales]

I did listen to the speech, which was nothing remarkable. However, the thing she said that really turned me off was she characterized the Tea Party people as good "selfess" people. Apparently the "Who is John Galt" signs made no impression on her, or, worse, she was trying to counter them. She seemed to get a real charge out of that statement.

I didn't hear the Q&A, but it looks to me like she was selling both pragmatism and faith.

The good things she says about free markets are all undermined by those fundamentals.

[RussK]

I did listen to the speech, which was nothing remarkable. However, the thing she said that really turned me off was she characterized the Tea Party people as good "selfess" people. Apparently the "Who is John Galt" signs made no impression on her, or, worse, she was trying to counter them. She seemed to get a real charge out of that statement.

I didn't hear the Q&A, but it looks to me like she was selling both pragmatism and faith.

The good things she says about free markets are all undermined by those fundamentals.

I've never participated in the movement in any way, though I wish I had to gain more understanding of it than my current position of just going by what others are saying about the movement. However, I do know a few older people and distant family members that participate, and I do make generalizations about the movement from these few irrational and emotionally driven (used) people. So, really, with only watching a few seconds of the speech, I thought Pyotr's assessment of it was most likely spot on, given what both Palin and the Tea Party movement has shown us already.

Sadly, I think you are absolutely correct in questioning whether Palin was trying to counter the "Who is John Galt" segment. From what I've heard and read, the reason for this convention and speech was to help unify the Tea Party "organization" into a more traditional political organization with a solid, consolidated voice or platform. Given who they've selected to speak for this more unified organization, we can see the direction they want to go; and it's not of any benefit for the future.