Wednesday, February 17th, 2010 | Author:

CBS, Little Rock, Arkansas, February 16, 2010:

Asked what her advice would be to conservatives as the November elections approach, Palin first lavished praise on the Tea Party movement, calling it “a grand movement” and adding, “I love it because it’s all about the people.”

But she quickly pivoted to the broader question of whether the Tea Party movement might successfully field its own candidates in national elections, and on that point she sounded far from convinced.

“Now the smart thing will be for independents who are such a part of this Tea Party movement to, I guess, kind of start picking a party,” Palin said. “Which party reflects how that smaller, smarter government steps to be taken? Which party will best fit you? And then because the Tea Party movement is not a party, and we have a two-party system, they’re going to have to pick a party and run one or the other: ‘R’ or ‘D’.”

That’s a bit like telling the prisoner to stop whining and decide which leg he wants amputated.  She’s either politically savvy and trying to hijack the tea-party movement – or she’s stupid and really doesn’t get it.

I don’t think she’s stupid.

Share
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
4 Responses
  1. Rebecca says:

    I’m not fond of Sarah Palin because she’s a “partyer.” And because Rush Limbaugh speaks of her so glowingly (but that may be just because she’s pretty, so….).

    The Tea Party movement is not all about the people– it’s about the Constitution! It’s comments like hers regarding this that proves that politicians are totally out of touch.

    The problem IS the two-party system. I wish people would stop looking for a political savior.

  2. Jim Wetzel says:

    ” … kind of start picking a party …”

    ???

    By “pick” a party, I assume she means voting. And I’m inclined to think that I won’t be voting again. Casting a vote, it seems to me, implies a sort of contract with the state, in which the voter has “had his say” and implicitly agrees to abide by the outcome. The Declaration of Independence says that ” … governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Not voting is my insignificant way of serving notice that my consent has been withdrawn. I remain, of course, subject to government power, even as I am subject to the power of tornadoes and earthquakes. I simply don’t want anyone to be able to say — correctly — thyat those powers are “just.” They aren’t.

  3. Jim Wetzel says:

    Sorry about the above typo. I’m finding it increasingly difficult to type “that” without it turning into “thyat.” Peculiar — most peculiar.

  4. akagaga says:

    @Rebecca The problem IS the two-party system. I wish people would stop looking for a political savior. Amen and amen.

    @Jim Not voting is my insignificant way of serving notice that my consent has been withdrawn. Boy, I wish I’d written that. You might see that point show up on my blog someplace along the way (with appropriate credit, of course.)

    In fact, it reminds me of my attitude towards most “churches.” I’m not going to attend, because I don’t want to put my “stamp of approval” on the local flavor of heresy.

    P.S. I ignore typos, as I’m frequently guilty of them. In fact, I didn’t even notice yours until you pointed it out.