POL Sarah Palin Hijacks The Tea Party Movement

[Y2kO]

http://www.infowars.com/beginning-of...arty-movement/

Beginning Of The End: Sarah Palin Hijacks The Tea Party Movement
By Kleinheider Posted on February 7, 2010

The tea party movement is dead. The one I was familiar with anyway. Judson Phillips held it down and Sarah Palin drove a stake right through its heart live last night on C-Span in front of an unsuspecting audience.

Sarah Palin didn’t give a tea party speech last night. She gave a partisan Republican address. It was a purely political speech designed to position her for a presidential run in 2012 or 2016. Period. She wasn’t there to celebrate the organic nature of a movement she had nothing to do with creating. She was there to co-opt the name and claim the brand as hers. And she did.

The movement, that came to be officially recognized almost a year ago but whose roots go back further than that, has been snuffed out and replaced in the public mind. The movement that began as a people’s movement of angry independent, libertarians and conservatives will now be thought as the movement of people like Palin, Dick Armey, Judson Phillips, Mark Skoda, etc. Essentially, a wholly owned subsidiary of the “Official Conservative Movement” and the Republican Party.

This new tea party bears no resemblance to the one that began a year ago as a reaction to the collapse of our financial system and the subsequent bailout. That movement of ragtag and unorganized libertarians, independents and conservatives was something new and unique. An authentic protest movement angered not just by the new President, Barack Obama, who had presided over the bailouts but the president who started the ball rolling and whose incompetence had led to the crisis in the first place, George W. Bush.

The people we saw on the steps of Legislative Plaza and county courthouses across the state last year weren’t “movement conservatives.” Certainly the movement conservatives were there at those protests but the tea parties were much bigger in size, scope and concept than just traditional modern conservatism reheated. Last night, the professional conservatives fixed that for good.

For over a year the media has struggled to try and define just what exactly the movement was. Now they have a definition.

Sarah Palin.

Palin, while explicitly saying the movement had no leader, implicitly offered herself up as one. After this speech, which was widely covered on the internet and carried on television, the tea party movement and Sarah Palin will be inextricably intertwined.

So with the spotlight on her and the attention of the curious media surrounding her what did she present as a tea party agenda? What did she discuss?

Ronald Reagan, national defense and superficial deficiencies of the current democratic occupant of the White House. Wow. In all honesty, the speech could have just as easily been given in 1994 as in 2010 which, of course, was the last time Republican operatives and professional conservatives sought to exploit an authentic populist movement of the center-right.

Ronald Reagan? Are you serious? Three times the name was invoked during the speech. Sure, it was his birthday but it serves to remind us what kind of crowd this was in front of those C-Span cameras.

These weren’t the people who were out protesting. This weren’t regular folks. This was the same old network of conservative hacks, flacks, publicists and hangers-on. This was Conservative Inc.

Ronald Reagan has nothing to do with the tea party movement. Nothing. Ronald Reagan is the past. The GOP’s past, no less. The tea party movement was supposed to be the future.

The fact that Palin even has the temerity to position herself as a leader in the movement (and despite her protests that’s exactly what she was doing) is offensive to any student of very, very recent political history. Palin, as mavericky and rogue as she likes to paint herself, was the Vice-Presidential nominee of the Republican Party in 2008. She ran with John McCain and defended the Bush legacy. A project she continued last night in front of a faux-tea party audience.

In her remarks, Palin praised the Senator from Arizona and chastised the current President for blaming the past one for his problems. Now, I don’t know every tea partier out there but I do know a few and I don’t remember any of them having a whole lot of good to say about President Bush or John McCain. While they don’t have much positive to say about Barack Obama there no love for George Bush either.

And when did the tea party movement get a foreign policy? I didn’t put a clock on it but the first portion of Palin’s speech seemed very heavy on the neoconservatism.

Palin expressed dismay about the fact that President Obama spent only “9 percent” of the State of the Union on foreign policy and stated that Americans “deserve to know the truth about the threats we face and what the administration is or isn’t doing about them.”

She talked about “homicide” Bombers and the slammed the administration of its handling of the man who plotted to take down a Detroit airliner on Christmas Day.

“Treating this like a mere law enforcement matter places our country at grave risk because that’s not how radical Islamic extremists are looking at this,” she told the assembled at Opryland. “They know we’re at war. And to win that war, we need a commander in chief, not a professor of law standing at the lectern.”

Palin talked about standing up to Iran, defending Israel and making the world safe for Democracy. All noble goals, I suppose, but what was she doing justifying and perpetuating the foreign policy of George Bush at a tea party convention?

The tea party I’m familiar with was concerned more about the collusion of big business and big government than the War in Iraq. The tea party I’m familiar with was more concerned about rejecting the bailout of Wall Street while looking for ways reinvigorate the economy of Main Street than looking for Al-Qaeda. The tea party I’m familiar with seemed more concerned about restoring the Republic at home than Democracy abroad.

Almost from start finish, Sarah Palin outlined an agenda that either ignored or de-emphasized the issues and the spirit that the tea parties were founded on.

Sure, there was some of the old school tea party rhetoric in there for flavor but, for a keynote address to a movement that at its inception was very radical, there was nothing radical about Sarah Palin’s speech. It was derivative circa 2004 neoconservatism as far as I could tell.

But the media now have their definition of what it means to be Tea Party. This convention gave them simplistic nativism, birtherism, media bashing, homophobia, and a heavy does of neoconservative foreign policy.

That is the image of tea partydom that Judson Phillips poured out to the eager media this weekend and is now percolating through the many channels of mass and new media.

By Monday afternoon, it will begin to harden and the tea party movement will be Sarah Palin’s movement.

And that is no tea party at all.
______________________
See the links cited at the original article linked above

[FREEBIRD]

The neo-cons have to co-opt the Tea Party movement; they can't tolerate competition for conservative votes and they're not about to allow the GOP to be "swung to the right".

As Audre Lorde used to say, "The master's tools will never unbuild the master's house."

[Fred]

I'm glad she finally gave the speech. I feel vindicated now.

[rhughe13]

If the Tea Party is going to survive this invasion by the failed Republican Party, it needs to act fairly quick with repudiation and denunciation.

These NWO Globalist Socialist neocons are a major reason for the creation of the Tea Party in the first place.

Maybe this will actually create a Tea Party leader to step forward and stop the madness.

[LONEWOLF]

Tea Party members were *supposed* to be busy and taken over the Republican Party - First. Looks like they were beaten to the punch.....The TP without leadership is lost, and so soon too...

[homepark]

No. The 'media' can't keep anything straight. There will be no "Tea Party" Party candidate. The Tea partiers may end up endorsing/supporting candidates, but there will be no Tea Party, party. As long as we focus on principles, and not personalities, we will remain effective.

Our enemies hope we might do many things to cause our demise. I am sure there are those who will attempt to exploit us. However, it is important to remember that we arose out of a common concern about big govt. and socialism. We have little structure and leadership. We are Armericans first, and above all else.

Behind every blade of grass.................

[someone]

duh

[eaglefeather]

be a strict constitutionalist party if it is going to grow legs in this country.

Once the compromising begins ..to "grow" the base, to become "more" centrist, to become something other than what it is....it devolves into a political party whose only effect is limited sway for one candidate or the other. Most of the folks in The Tea Party dislike politics and will not remain engaged in that type of process.

A strict constitutionalist party will gather momentum one disenfranchised voter at a time, as the Republican and Democrat failures to address the various storms facing America take their toll.......

Sarah is not the solution, nor the "leader" that The Tea Party needs. She was eye candy for the Republicans who had no viable answers. She is in the process of capitalizing on her good fortune and simply needs to heed Mr. Eastwood's advice when he said... " a man needs to know his limitations".....same goes for Sarah.

[Green Co.]

Originally Posted by homepark

No. The 'media' can't keep anything straight. There will be no "Tea Party" Party candidate. The Tea partiers may end up endorsing/supporting candidates, but there will be no Tea Party, party. As long as we focus on principles, and not personalities, we will remain effective.

Our enemies hope we might do many things to cause our demise. I am sure there are those who will attempt to exploit us. However, it is important to remember that we arose out of a common concern about big govt. and socialism. We have little structure and leadership. We are Armericans first, and above all else.

Behind every blade of grass.................

+1

IMO, this is what the tea party was about. Not about becoming a political party, but instead, the populace coming out to voice their disapproval of the current way things are run, against liberals or for conservative political candidates of either party.

We are individuals, with a common cause, we know the way & don't need politicians as leaders... we are learning, the R's & D's & the MSM are not.

[rhughe13]

Originally Posted by homepark

No. The 'media' can't keep anything straight. There will be no "Tea Party" Party candidate. The Tea partiers may end up endorsing/supporting candidates, but there will be no Tea Party, party. As long as we focus on principles, and not personalities, we will remain effective.

Our enemies hope we might do many things to cause our demise. I am sure there are those who will attempt to exploit us. However, it is important to remember that we arose out of a common concern about big govt. and socialism. We have little structure and leadership. We are Armericans first, and above all else.

Behind every blade of grass.................

Thanks. I haven't followed the movement very closely yet. I can understand where a following of people might want to hear all sides. But still think someone, or some faction of the party should officially and quickly denounce why a particular political voice will not be followed with their vote.

[Y2kO]

Originally Posted by homepark

No. The 'media' can't keep anything straight. There will be no "Tea Party" Party candidate. The Tea partiers may end up endorsing/supporting candidates, but there will be no Tea Party, party. As long as we focus on principles, and not personalities, we will remain effective.

Our enemies hope we might do many things to cause our demise. I am sure there are those who will attempt to exploit us. However, it is important to remember that we arose out of a common concern about big govt. and socialism. We have little structure and leadership. We are Armericans first, and above all else.

Behind every blade of grass.................

As long as the enemy is using your name (Tea Party) and wearing your t-shirts, and spewing their neocon philosophy, you are nowhere. And no matter what you call yourself, the minute you start to achieve some notariaty, they will do it again. You need a good spokesperson to separate your movement from the neocon-Republican Party. Unfortunately, most of your members don't know the difference between a constitutionalist, a neocon, a fascist, etc. And they worship Palin thinking she is going to do something different that John McCain or George W. Bush. She's right out there trashing the constitution just like the man who picked her.

[kozanne]

Originally Posted by homepark

No. The 'media' can't keep anything straight. There will be no "Tea Party" Party candidate. The Tea partiers may end up endorsing/supporting candidates, but there will be no Tea Party, party. As long as we focus on principles, and not personalities, we will remain effective.

Our enemies hope we might do many things to cause our demise. I am sure there are those who will attempt to exploit us. However, it is important to remember that we arose out of a common concern about big govt. and socialism. We have little structure and leadership. We are Armericans first, and above all else.

Behind every blade of grass.................

Eggzactly. People are looking at this issue backward. It wasn't until I heard her speech on Saturday that I realized the true nature of the Tea Party -- WE THE PEOPLE -- wielding our influence on ALL THE PARTIES to restore our country.

The Tea Party Nation will vote/support the candidate that most closely represents the will of the people regardless of party.

And Andrew Sullivan, obsessed with Sarah Palin's gynecological history, is a freaking idiot. He's the one that started all the dirt about Trig, the baby. I have more respect for a POS than I do for him.

[Seabear]

My problem with the Tea Party's is this, they did not give a damn about the country till recently with Obama taking the helm.

Most all I know are mad repubs which means they will fold back in the party when push comes to shove.

Tea Party is broad but shallow and that is its undoing.

Sarah P knows this and want naively to lead a redoing of the RINO infested party.

Foolish at best.

[shane]

Originally Posted by Seabear

My problem with the Tea Party's is this, they did not give a damn about the country till recently with Obama taking the helm.

Most all I know are mad repubs which means they will fold back in the party when push comes to shove.

Tea Party is broad but shallow and that is its undoing.

Sarah P knows this and want naively to lead a redoing of the RINO infested party.

Foolish at best.

I don't know how you can define the TeaParty as nebulously "broad but shallow" to then proclaim they are, and will all do, this & that.

It's too diverse, what brought people together, many came for different reasons, and will stay or leave for as many reasons, though all share a common theme of less govt intrusions and more Constitutional restraints.

Their strength, being individuals and not unified and led by a significant structured party line, you see as a weakness, but I'm not so sure.

Some are new to being outraged, true, and may be young Ron Paul type supporters, but many were already outraged, and some have been for decades, like Goldwater Republicans and John Birchers (who first educated me about the Federal Reserve Banksters in early 70's) and they are all quite comfortable together at most any TeaParty gathering.

And, as far as Republicans who will fold back in, I don't know about that, too, I see the just the opposite, as many who are there specifically because they are fed up voting the same RINO lessor of two evils and see now getting involved earlier on and more with the primary process to have better choices in the fall, like Medina for Texas Gov, and that's a trend we need to encourage more of, IMO.

Many TeaPartiers I would suspect would be more free to vote for whoever, be they running as a democrat, republican, independent, libertarian, whatever, that espoused and demonstrated they'd take their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution seriously and not as something to see how much they could circumvent, like RINO's do.


Got God, Grub, Guns & Gold?
Panic Early, Beat the Rush!

- Shane

[Kent]

Judging by the board liberal howls, the liberals really ARE scared of Sarah and the Tea Party Nation.

[knowzone]

It is now time to join your local Militia.

Sanctioned by the constitution, authorized by the individual states and called to duty by the Governor of each state.

Go quietly, meet the people there and develop a bond with fellow patriots.

It is now time to learn who you can trust and who is watching your back.

kz

[Binkerthebear]

As a former Republican, please keep these people out of the "Tea Party". They can run as Republicans but declare "Tea Party" above that corrupt crap party of McCain and Graham.

[PilotFighter]

Did anyone happen to catch that nice pretty little Isreali/Amerikan flag pin she was wearing on her collar? Why are people letting Palin and Beck hijack this Tea Party movement?

[American Rage]

Originally Posted by Y2kO

http://www.infowars.com/beginning-of...arty-movement/

Beginning Of The End: Sarah Palin Hijacks The Tea Party Movement
By Kleinheider Posted on February 7, 2010

The tea party movement is dead. The one I was familiar with anyway. Judson Phillips held it down and Sarah Palin drove a stake right through its heart live last night on C-Span in front of an unsuspecting audience.

Sarah Palin didn’t give a tea party speech last night. She gave a partisan Republican address. It was a purely political speech designed to position her for a presidential run in 2012 or 2016. Period. She wasn’t there to celebrate the organic nature of a movement she had nothing to do with creating. She was there to co-opt the name and claim the brand as hers. And she did.

The movement, that came to be officially recognized almost a year ago but whose roots go back further than that, has been snuffed out and replaced in the public mind. The movement that began as a people’s movement of angry independent, libertarians and conservatives will now be thought as the movement of people like Palin, Dick Armey, Judson Phillips, Mark Skoda, etc. Essentially, a wholly owned subsidiary of the “Official Conservative Movement” and the Republican Party.

This new tea party bears no resemblance to the one that began a year ago as a reaction to the collapse of our financial system and the subsequent bailout. That movement of ragtag and unorganized libertarians, independents and conservatives was something new and unique. An authentic protest movement angered not just by the new President, Barack Obama, who had presided over the bailouts but the president who started the ball rolling and whose incompetence had led to the crisis in the first place, George W. Bush.

The people we saw on the steps of Legislative Plaza and county courthouses across the state last year weren’t “movement conservatives.” Certainly the movement conservatives were there at those protests but the tea parties were much bigger in size, scope and concept than just traditional modern conservatism reheated. Last night, the professional conservatives fixed that for good.

For over a year the media has struggled to try and define just what exactly the movement was. Now they have a definition.

Sarah Palin.

Palin, while explicitly saying the movement had no leader, implicitly offered herself up as one. After this speech, which was widely covered on the internet and carried on television, the tea party movement and Sarah Palin will be inextricably intertwined.

So with the spotlight on her and the attention of the curious media surrounding her what did she present as a tea party agenda? What did she discuss?

Ronald Reagan, national defense and superficial deficiencies of the current democratic occupant of the White House. Wow. In all honesty, the speech could have just as easily been given in 1994 as in 2010 which, of course, was the last time Republican operatives and professional conservatives sought to exploit an authentic populist movement of the center-right.

Ronald Reagan? Are you serious? Three times the name was invoked during the speech. Sure, it was his birthday but it serves to remind us what kind of crowd this was in front of those C-Span cameras.

These weren’t the people who were out protesting. This weren’t regular folks. This was the same old network of conservative hacks, flacks, publicists and hangers-on. This was Conservative Inc.

Ronald Reagan has nothing to do with the tea party movement. Nothing. Ronald Reagan is the past. The GOP’s past, no less. The tea party movement was supposed to be the future.

The fact that Palin even has the temerity to position herself as a leader in the movement (and despite her protests that’s exactly what she was doing) is offensive to any student of very, very recent political history. Palin, as mavericky and rogue as she likes to paint herself, was the Vice-Presidential nominee of the Republican Party in 2008. She ran with John McCain and defended the Bush legacy. A project she continued last night in front of a faux-tea party audience.

In her remarks, Palin praised the Senator from Arizona and chastised the current President for blaming the past one for his problems. Now, I don’t know every tea partier out there but I do know a few and I don’t remember any of them having a whole lot of good to say about President Bush or John McCain. While they don’t have much positive to say about Barack Obama there no love for George Bush either.

And when did the tea party movement get a foreign policy? I didn’t put a clock on it but the first portion of Palin’s speech seemed very heavy on the neoconservatism.

Palin expressed dismay about the fact that President Obama spent only “9 percent” of the State of the Union on foreign policy and stated that Americans “deserve to know the truth about the threats we face and what the administration is or isn’t doing about them.”

She talked about “homicide” Bombers and the slammed the administration of its handling of the man who plotted to take down a Detroit airliner on Christmas Day.

“Treating this like a mere law enforcement matter places our country at grave risk because that’s not how radical Islamic extremists are looking at this,” she told the assembled at Opryland. “They know we’re at war. And to win that war, we need a commander in chief, not a professor of law standing at the lectern.”

Palin talked about standing up to Iran, defending Israel and making the world safe for Democracy. All noble goals, I suppose, but what was she doing justifying and perpetuating the foreign policy of George Bush at a tea party convention?

The tea party I’m familiar with was concerned more about the collusion of big business and big government than the War in Iraq. The tea party I’m familiar with was more concerned about rejecting the bailout of Wall Street while looking for ways reinvigorate the economy of Main Street than looking for Al-Qaeda. The tea party I’m familiar with seemed more concerned about restoring the Republic at home than Democracy abroad.

Almost from start finish, Sarah Palin outlined an agenda that either ignored or de-emphasized the issues and the spirit that the tea parties were founded on.

Sure, there was some of the old school tea party rhetoric in there for flavor but, for a keynote address to a movement that at its inception was very radical, there was nothing radical about Sarah Palin’s speech. It was derivative circa 2004 neoconservatism as far as I could tell.

But the media now have their definition of what it means to be Tea Party. This convention gave them simplistic nativism, birtherism, media bashing, homophobia, and a heavy does of neoconservative foreign policy.

That is the image of tea partydom that Judson Phillips poured out to the eager media this weekend and is now percolating through the many channels of mass and new media.

By Monday afternoon, it will begin to harden and the tea party movement will be Sarah Palin’s movement.

And that is no tea party at all.
______________________
See the links cited at the original article linked above

Ha! More proof that the leftist libs will do anything to stop her.


Rage

[krw57]

Originally Posted by kozanne

Eggzactly. People are looking at this issue backward. It wasn't until I heard her speech on Saturday that I realized the true nature of the Tea Party -- WE THE PEOPLE -- wielding our influence on ALL THE PARTIES to restore our country.

The Tea Party Nation will vote/support the candidate that most closely represents the will of the people regardless of party.

And Andrew Sullivan, obsessed with Sarah Palin's gynecological history, is a freaking idiot. He's the one that started all the dirt about Trig, the baby. I have more respect for a POS than I do for him.

+1k
tea partys down here are growing like crazy after her speech. i think she is great and really couldn't care less what the naysayers say. the tea partys power was shown in mass.

[Binkerthebear]

Originally Posted by PilotFighter

Did anyone happen to catch that nice pretty little Isreali/Amerikan flag pin she was wearing on her collar? Why are people letting Palin and Beck hijack this Tea Party movement?

Palin maybe but you'll have to prove Beck; he goes out of his way to say that he supports it but has nothing to do with it in any business sense.

[PilotFighter]

Originally Posted by Binkerthebear

Palin maybe but you'll have to prove Beck; he goes out of his way to say that he supports it but has nothing to do with it in any business sense.

Boy how soon we all forget his liberal views from his CNN days.

[Maher]

Sarah Palin will never be the voice that represents me. She ran with John McCain and endorsed him and his policies. I don't think she has a clue what's going on.