Excerpts from another fine Doctor Zero op-ed at Hot Air's Green Room:
"Not all of the Tea Party’s enemies are on the Left. Some of them are nominally conservative elitists like David Brooks..."To the good Doctor's commentary we would add that not all of the Tea Party enemies on the Right are Brooks-style elitists. There are some otherwise reliable conservatives who are questioning the motives and motivations of some in the Tea Party movement. Many of those are also taking shots at Sarah Palin because she refuses to be an enabler of CPAC, which we suggest should change its name to MittPAC for truth-in-packaging purposes.
[...]
"The Tea Party convention made a bold choice in selecting Sarah Palin as the keynote speaker for their convention. It was also very considerate of them – since the same people hate Palin and the Tea Parties, for the same reasons, their enemies can reduce their carbon footprint by carpooling to Nashville."
"It has been suggested that Palin might not have been the most strategic choice for a keynote speaker, since she’s not running for any office in 2010. I think she’s perfect, because the Tea Party is looking for a representative, not a leader. They want a champion they can send into the field, carrying their banner. Some have criticized the Tea Parties as populist in nature, but populism is defined by pandering, rather than persuasion… and a movement that asks the author of America’s best-selling political book to escort it into the American spotlight is definitely interested in persuasion."
Some of the criticism has been directed at the National Tea Party Convention and its organizers, Tea Party Nation. Sarah Palin is the keynote speaker, but Michele Bachmann, Marsha Blackburn and a number of others will also speak. Tickets for the event don't come cheaply at about $560, but this is a three-day event with breakout sessions, panel discussions and the like. It was not designed for the average mom and pop Tea Party goer, but rather for those who organize Tea Party events at the local, county and state levels. Local Tea Party groups can pass the hat or have some fund-raising events of their own to send delegates to the convention.
Still, we were among those who complained that most Sarah Palin supporters would not be able to afford to attend. The organizers responded by offering a somewhat lower-priced ticked for the banquet only. While still not cheap at about $360, that makes the banquet not that much different from a $350-a-plate county GOP fundraiser, except that Sarah Palin is the kind superstar attraction you don't usually get at the county GOP dinner.
Some on the Right have suggested that the convention is simply a ploy for TPN staff to enrich themselves. Take a look at the sponsors page on the convention website and decide for yourself if The Eagle Forum, Smart Girl Politics and the other sponsors would allow their names to be used to support a scam. We don't think so.
We find it to be a loathsome turn of events when some people attack the Tea Party movement for no reason other than the fact that Sarah Palin has decided not to attend CPAC. Look at all that Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement have done for the cause of conservatism, and then ask yourself what CPAC has done for the cause lately, except to take a lot of the "conservative" out of it.
- JP
Josh, those of us who support Sarah Palin genuinely for the sake of our country, and not for our own personal sakes, find much wisdom and loyalty in your words. The Toms and the Dans are drawing the lines - Sarah is simply faithful to who she is. Equally, the line drawers are simply exposing they have a hidden agenda (moles?) and are showing clearly who they are, and that is they're not friends of Sarah Palin or our country, or mine.
ReplyDeleteGreat post. Just one comment. I don't define populism the way Brooks does. Populism is not 'defined by pandering'. In truth, there is no 'one' definition for populism. There was populism at play in Obama's election. I don't like the use of the word 'populism' as if it is a bad thing. It's one thing that helps candidates win elections, including Obama.
ReplyDeleteGlenn, I don't think you're being fair to Tom. I've had some dealings with him, and he's one of the good guys. He just disagrees with us about Sarah Palin, that's all. I don't know Dan as well as I do Tom, but I would also hestiate to ascribe any nefarious agenda behind his opinions, which are contrary to ours, regarding Sarah. If I had to guess, it would be that Dan has become part of the "conservative establishment" without even realizing it.
ReplyDeleteLisa, Webster defines populist as "a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people." Elitists of Brooks' ilk can try to spin their definition of a populist any way they want, but a populist is nothing more than Webster says he or she is. Populists have come in many flavors, however. There are the good (Sarah Palin), the bad (Huey Long) and the ugly (David Duke).
- JP
Josh, thanks very much for your words regarding what Dan and Tom are doing. If I am being unfair I will certainly apologize. Time will tell as to where they stand. I have not yet reached the point of being reasonable about attacks on the judgement of the most astute and principled politician in the land. I don't pretend that Sarah is perfect, and this is still America, in spite of Obama's efforts to make it otherwise, so, yes, they have the right to express their opinions. I just get suspicious when "supporters" begin to do the same thing the Lame Stream Media does. Jaded? Very Likely...
ReplyDeleteI think the point people may be missing here, and at the risk of getting myself in trouble, is that Palin has not always governed as down-the-line conservative.
ReplyDeleteShe's not whistling dixie when she adds "common sense." As others point out, she did raise taxes on Big Oil, because she thought they were exploiting Alaskans. That's not a purist conservative position. So she has gotten and continues to get criticism over that.
She did raise the sales tax in Wasilla to pay for the sports arena.
She did not make social conservative issues part of her legislative agenda.
She got her agenda through AK largely because of working with the Dems, with whom she had a better working relationship than with the Repubs. See Art Chance over at Red State, who's a purist conservative Repub and can not stand her. That's a big reason, I believe, why McCain liked her, because she crossed the aisle and worked with Dems.
She is truly an Independent common sense conservative controlled by no one.
So she will probably work with what we would call moderates. Or even Democrats if they're for common sense. That is her history.
If people don't know that and are shocked and stop supporting her, then they were supporting a false image to begin with.
hrh ... great comments... sometimes I think Sarah Palin supporters project their own image of what they think she is and lay it on her...
ReplyDeleteSarah Palin believes in some fairly basic Conservative principles... beyond that, I am sure there are Conservatives who will quibble about the outlying issues...
they have to remember that Palin will not fit their image of the perfect Conservative all of the time... it is impossible.
As hrh just mentioned, she did work with Democrats when the Republicans would not co-operate because of petty feelings after she fought the corruption in that party.. so, do people still like her if she actually talks to conservative Democrats or works on bringing in Independents? If they don't then they have the wrong idea about all this.
The most important mission at the moment is to vote out as many left wing and socialist members as possible this fall and then work on 2012.
FYI, I know and love Dan Riehl. He means no harm, LIKES Governor Palin, and just really has an honest disagreement. I hope everyone will give him a break. I disagree with both his opinion and some of his tone on this, but he is NOT out to get Sarah Palin. That's the last thing on his mind......for what it's worth.
ReplyDeleteHrh,
ReplyDeleteWho said Gov.Palin is hardline conservative? The only people who try to paint Gov. Palin as a hardline conservative are the libs and the MSM, and perhaps some hopelessly gullible Kool-aid drinkers. She would not have had 88% approval rating in Alaska if she were truly a Right-wing extremist kook.
Similarly, the Tea Party Movement is Not so much a purely hardline conservative movement, but more of an anti-establishment, anti-Washington-insider, anti-elitist movement. That is why Gov. Palin fits so well with the Tea Party movement.
-----
Even though Gov. Palin is not a right-wing extremist, her policies were certainly far from liberal.
ACES, is not the typical income tax imposed on Big Oil, but more of a revenue-sharing deal. As Gov. Palin explained, the objective of ACES was to arrive at an equitable system for pricing the oil that belongs to Alaskans. This is not liberal or anti-capitalism in the same way that an entrepreneur who raises the price of her goods and services is not necessarily anti-capitalism. Furthermore, the additional revenue was not used to grow government, as a liberal socialist would have done, but refunded directly to Alakans. If a rebate is a negative tax, then Gov. Palin actually lowered taxes on all Alaskans. Again, a liberal would not have implemented a flat rebate, or negative tax, but would have set up some progressive scale, or that favors some special interest group over others, since class-warfare is a constant objective of liberals.