Sarah Palin & Tea Partiers: A Match Made In Heaven

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Conservatism, Conservatives, Money, Palin, Republicans

Sarah Palin Fan

I’m not kidding. It’s the perfect combination. A slew of ill informed protesters who heart Glenn Beck, think they know “true” conservative values and are convinced our country is turning into a dictatorship and Sarah Palin…an ill informed politician who hearts Glenn Beck, claims she knows “true” conservative values and loves to convince folks our country is turning into a dictatorship…and that Obama wants to kill your grandparents.

What’s not to love?

So yes, I’m bringing this up because she’s headlining their first convention, and that’s where it gets very interesting. Because while the Republicans have a big opportunity to pick up steam going in 2012, the Tea Party movement could completely undermine it…in much the same way the Deaniacs did in 2004.

A political scientist explains…

But courting what many call a fringe and inchoate movement carries huge risks, argues Alan Abramowitz, a political scientist at Emory University, in Atlanta.

He says a Republican shift toward the Reaganesque Tea Party ideal could lead to a sort of pogrom for moderate Republicans, forcing out those (think Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe) who don’t hew precisely to rock-hard conservative principles around economic freedom and limited government interference.

“The Republican Party is trapped by their base, which is going increasingly conservative,” says Mr. Abramowitz. “Yes, Republicans can do fairly well in the 2010 elections – it’s entirely possible that they could pick up 20 to 30 seats in the House – but they could read the wrong message from that. In 2012, if the economy is doing reasonably well again and Obama’s popularity has stabilized, that strategy is going to be very risky and this could all come back to haunt them.”

Oh, and Palin is getting paid anywhere from $75K to $100K to speak at the event. Looks like freedom pays handsomely!

My question: Does this hint at a third party run in 2012?


This entry was posted on Friday, January 8th, 2010 and is filed under Conservatism, Conservatives, Money, Palin, Republicans. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

31 Responses to “Sarah Palin & Tea Partiers: A Match Made In Heaven”

  1. Doomed Says:

    The Democrats run on “Were not Bush…..Were not Republicans” and the American people go okay….kewl.

    The GOP are going to run on “Were not Obama….Were not Democrats” and the American people will go okay…kewl.

    I dont know about you but Im tired of being a ping pong ball.

    I for one look forward to a third party in this country because if the only thing that puts the GOP back in power is not being democrats then their is something seriously wrong with our two party system.

    Perhaps we could have 4 parties. The other party could be nazi swastica carrying democrats protesting the two wars were still fighting.

  2. Frank Hagan Says:

    I think Abramowitz is right; the GOP could learn the wrong lesson from the expected pick up of House and Senate seats in November. Just like the Dems may have learned the wrong lesson, drove hard left and squandered their “majority for a generation.”

  3. kranky kritter Says:

    This strikes me as the same sort of wishful thinking we saw from the same folks who declared that conservatives were heading for irrelevancy.

    I don’t think it’s really going to be that hard for a good conservative politician to convert angry skewed rhetoric into a small handful of sensible policy points. Like smaller government and lower federal spending and more aggressive foreign policy.

    Of course, it’s always possible that a 3rd party candidate can emerge with plausible claims of viability. And then that candidate, if he or she stays in the race, can distort the will of the people enough to change the outcome.

    That’s the nature of politics in the currently existing electoral system, After all, it was Ralph Nader’s 2000 candidacy that enabled the election of George Bush. And now, still-stinging liberals hope conservative indulge in a similar folly with Palin in 2012. And that’s great, because we can watch and see whether 2012 conservatives are as dumb and spiteful and blindly self-serving as liberals were in 2000.

  4. WHQ Says:

    Like smaller government and lower federal spending and more aggressive foreign policy.

    What’s up with that last one?

  5. Doomed Says:

    The GOP doesnt have a corner on stupidity.

    http://www.mixx.com/videos/1562588/youtube_these_boots_are_made_for_walkin_11_04_2008

  6. Justin Gardner Says:

    Doomed,

    That’s a new one to me. Yeah, pretty silly. But I can one up you. Did you ever see Hillary4U&Me?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FvyGydc8no

  7. mw Says:

    JG & Doomed,

    Both of those are pretty good, but you gotta admit, in retrospect, the silliest and most ironic one of them all from the campaign, was this.

  8. kranky kritter Says:

    at WHQ:

    Just presuming there’s some purchase for the notion that Obama’s not doing enough to keep America safe.

    FWIW, I’m not saying I necessarily agree with any of the ideas I listed, I’m only saying that the current RW vitriol appears easy to connect with tried and true conservative chestnuts.

  9. Trescml Says:

    What the Republicans really want to avoid is this being another Williams Jennings Bryant situation which the Democrats had at the beginning of the 20th century. Bryant was a populist who managed to tap into public anger and it split the Democratic party for over 12 years. A Ralph Nader situation would be tolerable as long it is peters out quickly, but the trick is going to be trying to push the momentum of the Tea Party while keeping its organizational skills and leadership minimized.

    Palin as a 3rd party candidate could pull in 20 percent of a vote and maybe even more if the economy gets much worse. This type role could hold some appeal for Palin since it would allow her to keep high visibility without having to deal with Washington insiders all the time. Keeping her in the Republican fold should be a high priority for the party.

  10. Nick Benjamin Says:

    @kk

    This strikes me as the same sort of wishful thinking we saw from the same folks who declared that conservatives were heading for irrelevancy.

    I don’t know if you noticed, but Conservatives are currently irrelevant. They don’t control either house, can only filibuster in the Senate when a Democrat agrees with them, and they refuse to cut deals. When your most powerful advocate is Joe Lieberman you’re probably in trouble.

    Most pundits project they’ll be slightly more relevant next year because they’ll pick up Senate seats. I disagree because with the economy picking, and health reform passing the Dems poll numbers are likely to rise.

    @mw
    IMO that Change poster will be amply justified when Obama signs health reform into law. 70 years ago Roosevelt faced a nasty conservative backlash, and passed a much less ambitious program then he originally wanted, but he is still remembered a s a change President who got Social Security through.

    Add that to the Carbon regulations that are inevitable, and the fairly steady progress on things like GitMo, and it’s a pretty bug change.

  11. Frank Hagan Says:

    @Nick, you believe the Dems will pick up seats in the Senate? I would be very surprised at that (although they dodged a bullet with Sen. Dodd retiring, because he was vulnerable.) I think they will lose 2 or 3 seats at a minimum. Many more in the House, but probably around 20 or so, leaving the Dems with a comfortable majority there too.

    @Trescml – I doubt Sara will pull in 20% of the vote as a third party candidate. It could happen … Perot got something like 20%. But I think Sara will remain a Republican and assume the role of kingmaker.

  12. wj Says:

    I’m not sure how much credence to give to someone who speaks of the “the Reaganesque Tea Party ideal”. If you look at the record, it is clear that Reagan (more precisely, someone with Reagan’s record, but not the name) would be drummed out of the GOP as an obvious RINO. Consider:
    - raised taxes
    - disfunctional family life
    - never goes to church

    All Reagan has going for him with the current Republican Party is that
    a) he won the Presidency, and
    b) he said he was a conservative (ignore the fact that the Republican base is not conservative, they are actually reactionary — but they like the name “conservative”)

    So, “Reaganesque” Tea Party ideal? Not buying it. And someone who says he is a political scientist, i.e. a student of politics, and uses that phrase? Gotta seriously doubt his expertise.

  13. Nick Benjamin Says:

    @Frank
    That was poorly phrased.

    I think the Senate will come out about even. I thought we’d gain seats before Dorgan quit, right now I’m at both parties holding their total numbers. To do that we need to keep all our incumbents or knock off some handy Republicans..

    There’re some the GOP has basically no chance of taking. (CA, WA, OR, WI, IN, MA HA, MD, VT, CT, and both NY seats), and you’re dreaming if you think you can beat Obama in IL. Especially with a guy who has made a point of opposing most of Obama’s agenda, and Kirk won’t survive a GOP primary if he votes with Obama on anything substantive.

    I think Castle could have kept his House seat for life if he’d wanted to in DE. But he’s gonna be running against a returning war vet, who is already an accomplished politician, and happens to be the son of the most successful Delaware resident of all time. Especially if the current Democratic numbers are a valley.

    AR, and PA are iffy. I think both incumbents will lose in their primaries to more electable candidates. And even with the current low poll numbers we’re likely to old those states.

    That leaves three seats. CO is in a lot of ways like AR and PA, but it’s also a state that’s constantly in flux. We work hard we’ll probably keep it. NV is a 50-50 shot (at best), and we pretty much lost ND when Dorgan retired.

    And there are several Republican seats we’re likely to end up with. OH, NH, and MO are all open seats. They’re considered competitive, and (if I’m right about the Dem poll numbers turning around) are likely to lean Dem come election-day. NC’s Senator Burr is notorious among politicos for his low name recognition. Nobody will be very surprised if he loses. And the FL GOP primary is already extremely acrimonious.

  14. mw Says:

    @Nick
    I think it is money and mouth time – or in this case – scotch and keyboard.

    Have I offered you this wager yet? I just don’t think the one bottle of 15 year old Laphroaig that I am going to get from Reynolds will hold me until 2012.

    I’ll sweeten your deal, based on your prognostications. We’ll just bet on the Senate, and I’ll give you the tie. The GOP will have to pick up seats for me to win.

  15. Nick Benjamin Says:

    How much does Scotch cost?

    The hardest stuff in my liquor cabinet is Cherry Coke, so I have no idea.

  16. Frank Hagan Says:

    @Nick – Boxer’s numbers are falling; she is down to ten points over either Fiorina or Devore (and Devore is much less well known). In March, she was 30 points up.

  17. Nick Benjamin Says:

    @Frank
    She’s running for governor, not re-election to the Senate.

  18. Nick Benjamin Says:

    @Frank
    I was wrong. She is running for re-election, and her numbers are soft.

    Nonetheless if my theory that the Dems are at a low point is correct she’s still gonna win. Unless Jerry Brown knocks her off in the primary. The unions are really pissed about card-check, and she is a major reason they didn’t get it.

  19. kranky kritter Says:

    I don’t know if you noticed, but Conservatives are currently irrelevant. They don’t control either house, can only filibuster in the Senate when a Democrat agrees with them, and they refuse to cut deals. When your most powerful advocate is Joe Lieberman you’re probably in trouble.

    If conservatives are so irrelevant, how come healthcare hasn’t passed, with a public option? Or cap and trade? Or anything else substantive off of the progressive wish list?

    Progressives dearly want to believe conservatives are irrelevant and diminishing further, but it just aint so. The progressive agenda just has not captured the public’s imagination. 2008 was the progressives’ crest. That crest consisted of 58 democrats and 2 independents, right? And from among those 58 democrats, at least 5or 10 are actually conservative blue dogs who are are despised or at best tolerated by progressives, right?

    God Nick, see the snapshot for what it is. Is it really more important to try to win an argument with me than to see that conservative-liberal battle is as pitched as ever?

  20. Nick Benjamin Says:

    @kkIf conservatives are so irrelevant, how come healthcare hasn’t passed, with a public option? Or cap and trade? Or anything else substantive off of the progressive wish list?OK. Conservatives are relevant because there are just enough of them to slow things down. And don’t give Conservatives credit for killing the public option. That was all Joe Lieberman, and I wouldn’t wish that doofus on any ideological group.

    And weren’t you one of the guys who said the conservative/GOP Senators couldn’t be blamed if health reform failed because there were only 40 of them; whereas there were 60 Democrats? Which kind of implies they’re irrelevant…

  21. Nick Benjamin Says:

    A cleaner version:

    If conservatives are so irrelevant, how come healthcare hasn’t passed, with a public option? Or cap and trade? Or anything else substantive off of the progressive wish list?

    OK. Conservatives are relevant because there are just enough of them to slow things down. And don’t give Conservatives credit for killing the public option. That was all Joe Lieberman, and I wouldn’t wish that doofus on any ideological group.

    And weren’t you one of the guys who said the conservative/GOP Senators couldn’t be blamed if health reform failed because there were only 40 of them; whereas there were 60 Democrats? Which kind of implies they’re irrelevant…

  22. kranky kritter Says:

    OK. Conservatives are relevant because there are just enough of them to slow things down. And don’t give Conservatives credit for killing the public option. That was all Joe Lieberman, and I wouldn’t wish that doofus on any ideological group.

    So, the other 40 senators get no credit? It was all one guy?How preposterous is that?

    And weren’t you one of the guys who said the conservative/GOP Senators couldn’t be blamed if health reform failed because there were only 40 of them; whereas there were 60 Democrats? Which kind of implies they’re irrelevant…

    Pretty sure my main point has always been that you couldn’t blame the GOP for not compromising on healthcare because it legitimately ran counter to their known core principles.

    But it’s quite true that democrats could have made the republicans irrelevant if they could have gotten their act together and acted with unanimity. But they failed at that. So, in practice, Republicans were relevant. And conservatives, a larger group comprising most republicans and some noticeable fraction of democrats, the blue dogs, have managed to be QUITE relevant.

    Healthcare has not passed due to a combination of conservative opposition and democratic lack of consensus. Or political ineptitude. That democrats have thus far achieved so little even with current majorities makes me wonder just how low the GOP’s senator count would have to go for the democrats to make something happen. 35, perhaps. Or 30.

    Anyone here remember the heady days after Obama’s election when there were progressive memes about how the next step was to expel the apostate blue dogs? How far have we come since then folks? Exactly, a bit back to the right.

    The progressive tide crested with Obama’s election, and progressives were the only ones who didn’t know it. I don’t yearn personally for a hard swing back to the right, I just knew then and am surer now that 60 (or 58) democratic senators was going to be a high-water mark.

  23. Nick Benjamin Says:

    @kk

    So, the other 40 senators get no credit? It was all one guy?How preposterous is that?

    In politics you don’t get credit for could’ves. Lieberman gets credit for being the vote everyone knew the Dems needed, and actually getting it done.

    The other4 0 get credit for not saving the public option, and”not saving” is only the same as “killing” in certain legal contexts.

    Pretty sure my main point has always been that you couldn’t blame the GOP for not compromising on healthcare because it legitimately ran counter to their known core principles.

    Several months ago you made the point that if health care failed it the only people who deserved blame were Democrats because they had 60 Senate seats.

    I actually spent 5-10 minutes looking for that post, but google search of this page goes only so far, and you comment on a lot of other issues. I suspect if one of us does find that post he’ll also find my post claiming the opposite, and we’ll both look fairly silly.

    I suspect historians will look back at this, and say the GOP, and their Conservative allies, were barely relevant. It’s also possible they’ll find a non-dickish reason for Lieberman’s actions, but I doubt it.

    BTW Have you figured out which GOP core principle HCR violates yet? Because I’m still waiting on that one.

  24. machete Says:

    “Ill informed.” ha

    Wandered back here after almost 3 years away and I’m quickly reminded why I stopped following this site. Pretty much all donkey.

  25. machete Says:

    And for the record, Sarah Palin is a moron.

  26. kranky kritter Says:

    The sonic death monkeys will perform as the Judas Lieberman Hypothesis for tonight.

    BTW Have you figured out which GOP core principle HCR violates yet? Because I’m still waiting on that one.

    Why don’t you go back and search that thread again, because I am certain that I listed at least 2, and probably 3. I am also certain that in that thread, you later challenged me about this a 2nd time, after I had already responded to it. And that I pointed this out to you immediately afterward.

    In politics you don’t get credit for could’ves. Lieberman gets credit for being the vote everyone knew the Dems needed, and actually getting it done.

    The other 40 get credit for not saving the public option, and”not saving” is only the same as “killing” in certain legal contexts.

    This is IMO a peculiar argument. Apparently your view is that Lieberman gets all the credit because he had the “game-winning RBI” for the public option opponents’ team. Even in baseball, where they like to make much of the concept of game-winning RBI, they don’t claim that all the other runs and runs batted in are “irrelevant.” Even Joe Morgan and John Kruk understand that if you want to win 5 to 4, you nedd all 5 runs. So, I find your argument wholly unpersuasive.

    Pretty sure my main point has always been that you couldn’t blame the GOP for not compromising on healthcare because it legitimately ran counter to their known core principles.

    Several months ago you made the point that if health care failed it the only people who deserved blame were Democrats because they had 60 Senate seats.

    I’m sure that you are correct that I made an argument very much like that. I still think there’s substantial truth to what I’m pointing out. And what I object to on your part is the way in which you seem to be trying to win some argument by slapping me with a gotcha. Let’s skip past that and try to see what we can establish as pretty much true.

    If the democrats had managed to behave with the same unanimity as the GOP, we’d likely have passed reform by now, right? I’ll grant you the special role of Joe Lieberman by saying that it’s not certain. But if the democrats hadn’t submarined Lieberman in his last Senate campaign, do we think he’d enjoying his role as a thorn in the side of healthcare reform? Surely you’d grant that it’s at least possible that he’d be playing ball if he didn’t have scores to settle with the folks who helped Lamont.

    In the end, there’s no way we can come to any sort of agreement in this argument without some sort of good faith understanding of what we mean by “relevant.” IMO, in the context of the current politics we’ve been discussing, relevancy refers to the ability to affect outcomes in congress.

    Which brings me right back to my previous point. I wish I could do better than to repeat myself. But. This congress has so far achieved so very little of substance from the progressive agenda. And that is extremely good evidence that Republicans have managed to remain relevant despite their tenuous mathematical position.

    An interesting last note: if I am wrong, and the Republicans are in fact currently irrelevant, then it must necessarily follow that the the reason for the lack of progress by democrats on their own agenda MUST BE democratic ineptitude. So if you blame Republicans for the failure of healthcare reform, then you are conceding that they are in fact relevant. And if instead you declare that they are irrelevant, then you must concede that the democrats are inept. I think this is why you keep trying so hard to escape the horns of this dilemma by plumping your Judas Lieberman hypothesis.

    Cool name for a band, that. For tonight, and for tonight only, the sonic death monkeys will perform as the Judas Lieberman Hypothesis.

  27. mw Says:

    I can’t figure out where Nick is coming from on this either. I am going to guess that no matter what you invoke as a “core conservative principle” he’ll come back with a counter example where the GOP majority under Bush supported a bill that violated it. Easy to do. Single Party GOP Rule from 2001-2006 pretty much violated every core conservative fiscal and limited government principle there is. Of course, the fact that the GOP did not live up to their professed conservative principles does not mean that this HCR abomination is consistent with conservative principles. Interesting that HCR also manages to violate core progressive principles. I guess some Centrists will point to this fact a proof that it is a reasonable compromise, as opposed to just a really bad bill.

    Whatever. Both parties seem to lose focus on core principles when they have all the keys, and instead prioritize shoveling all they can from the public trough for themselves, their constituents, and contributors.

  28. Nick Benjamin Says:
    In politics you don’t get credit for could’ves. Lieberman gets credit for being the vote everyone knew the Dems needed, and actually getting it done.

    The other 40 get credit for not saving the public option, and”not saving” is only the same as “killing” in certain legal contexts.

    This is IMO a peculiar argument. Apparently your view is that Lieberman gets all the credit because he had the “game-winning RBI” for the public option opponents’ team. Even in baseball, where they like to make much of the concept of game-winning RBI, they don’t claim that all the other runs and runs batted in are “irrelevant.” Even Joe Morgan and John Kruk understand that if you want to win 5 to 4, you nedd all 5 runs. So, I find your argument wholly unpersuasive.

    Strictly speaking Lieberman’s deal on the Public Option was a defeat for them, because if he’d joined their filibuster reform would have died completely.

    If there had only been two sides in this fight it would have been over last February.

    Which brings me right back to my previous point. I wish I could do better than to repeat myself. But. This congress has so far achieved so very little of substance from the progressive agenda. And that is extremely good evidence that Republicans have managed to remain relevant despite their tenuous mathematical position.

    In about two weeks they will have accomplished most of the Progressive agenda when Obama signs HCR. Kos and some other groups may not see it that way, but given the bizarre constraints of the US political system this particular $Trillion program is IMO a win for us.

    We’re gonna get action on climate change. Either the Senate will pass Cap and Trade, or Obama will write the regulations himself.

    We have a definite withdrawal date in Afghanistan.

    There are smaller issues we haven’t gotten movement on. Gays in the military, financial regulation, etc. But last September very few people were for Obama solely so gay guys could openly serve, or bankers could be screwed.

    In the end, there’s no way we can come to any sort of agreement in this argument without some sort of good faith understanding of what we mean by “relevant.” IMO, in the context of the current politics we’ve been discussing, relevancy refers to the ability to affect outcomes in congress.

    Which they ultimately don’t have. They can slow things down to a crawl, but 30 years from no nobody will say “And when Obama got universal health care passed in 2010 that Legislative Genius Jim DeMint drew the debate out for a year.”

    That’s probably where we’re gonna have to agree to disagree.

    An interesting last note: if I am wrong, and the Republicans are in fact currently irrelevant, then it must necessarily follow that the the reason for the lack of progress by democrats on their own agenda MUST BE democratic ineptitude

    I’ll agree with this. It gives me the opportunity to call Joe Lieberman an incompetent evil-doer; while claiming that Landrieu, Lincoln, and Nelson are morons. The other 56 have been called much worse then incompetent over their political carers, so they won’t mind.

  29. Nick Benjamin Says:

    @mw

    I can’t figure out where Nick is coming from on this either. I am going to guess that no matter what you invoke as a “core conservative principle” he’ll come back with a counter example where the GOP majority under Bush supported a bill that violated it.

    Actually I was planning on pointing out that HCR is pro-every GOP principle I can think of. The difference between “subsidies” and “vouchers” is semantic, the Exchange is the national insurance market they claim will fix everything, it reduces overall government spending, it encourages private enterprise, it attempts to make existing government programs more efficient, etc.

  30. Michael LaRocca Says:

    Palin. Tea Party. Sure. It’s easier than thinking.

  31. debbiep Says:

    your absolutely right!! a match made in heaven!!! they deserve each other

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: