Palin's Nashville Speech Raises Questions

There are at least two significant disconnects between Sarah Palin's Nashville rhetoric and reality. Her full speech available here. While her biggest fans might not mind, it does seem fair to ask just how candid she's being. On the one hand, Palin insists the movement should be leaderless.

NASHVILLE — The burgeoning tea party movement should remain leaderless and decentralized, former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin said Saturday, calling the effort “bigger than any king or queen of the tea party.”

“Put your faith in ideas. I caution against allowing this movement to be defined by one leader or operation,” she told the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville. The small government movement is “a ground-up call to action that’s forcing both parties to change the way they’re doing business. This is about the people.”

That all sounds good. Unfortunately, unless she's totally oblivious to the star  power that earned her 100k for her speech last night, she seems on track to become that very thing.

This weekend, it's Nashville, but in March, I'll head to Searchlight, Nev., for the kickoff rally at the Tea Party Express III. In April, I'll be in Boston for a Tea Party gathering there. Across the country, tea-partiers will be sharing our vision for America's future, a vision that promotes common sense solutions to out-of-control spending and an out-of-touch political establishment.

At the very least, it strikes me as a bit coy for Palin to suggest the movement doesn't need a leader, while looking as though she's planning to become it at the same time.

Another reality may be even more cause for concern. I don't know that she rewrote history as much as Dave Weigel suggests. But she invoked the recent GOP wins in NJ, VA and Mass. Those aren't wins in which Sarah Palin played any real part. If Palin now sees the Tea Party movement as a means of building her own base for 2012, the real question might be, who needs whom more? Does the Tea Party movement need Sarah Palin? It didn't need her in VA, NJ or Mass. Or, does she need it?

If that's the case, her getting paid to address it seems all the more puzzling, unfortunately. The one race Palin was most involved with was Doug Hoffman. He lost. And as I posted yesterday, if she helps Rand Paul win the GOP primary and he loses the general, Palin won't be doing much better than the WH at 0-2.

Palin adroitly rewrote the history of the past three months of elections, giving the Tea Party movement credit for Scott Brown’s election in Massachusetts and calling the White House “0 for 3″ in recent elections — leaving out the New York special election where her candidate, the Conservative Party’s Doug Hoffman, lost in a last-minute upset.

Comments

[Huey]

Man.

Huh?

The words coming out of her mouth can't be believed because you've divined her real intentions.

The local tea parties didn't have anything to do with Brown's election? The local ones throughout the nation who participated in the moneybomb didn't have anything to do with Brown's election? The movement itself, just by its existence throughout the country -- demanding answers in the health care debate, picketing, etc. -- didn't have anything to do with Brown's election?

Obama isn't 0-3?

Man...

Sheesh....

Huh?

[smitty]

I enjoyed a riff on you use of the word 'coy'.
http://theothermccain.com/2010/02/07/accusations-of-coyness-from-dan-riehl/

[bishop]

She will be supporting much more than Paul, Kasich, Taylor, probably Tarkanian, following her parents path. Yes it's not really about her, but she does have the biggest megaphone

[Dan Riehl]

I didnt' say any of that, Huey. All I said was, she wasn't involved with it.

[Huey]

Uh..she didn't say she was, Dan.

[Sissy Willis]

I had the impression she stayed out of Scott Brown territory knowing her brand of tea would not be potable to many Bay Staters. Plus, although her candidate Hoffman lost in New York, that race was, as I blogged back then, "a eureka moment as we saw the social-networking sausage taking shape before our eyes."

http://sisu.typepad.com/sisu/2009/10/give-to-strategic-smallgovernment-candidates-not-parties.html

[alwaysfiredup]

She gave the tea partiers credit for those elections, not herself. She wants to be thought well of by tea partiers, to do what she can to help and encourage them, and I'm sure she wants their votes in 2012. But they have no leader. Nope, don't see any coyness. Sorry.

[Dan Riehl]

Huey, you're creating a strawman argument. It's a simple freaking point. She didnt help win in NJ, VA or Mass, the TP movement did. So who needs who? Deal with it. Her speech was GOP boilerplate. That's less popular than what the TP movement has been before now.

[Chris Todd]

Isn't the point that she gives some mass, not direction, to the movement? I think she knows she is too hamstrung to be a meaningful national candidate. I think this movement is the right thing at the right time. As Pat Caddell said on Fox, the Tea Party movement reminds him of the strength and the power of the antiwar movement. People understand economic and political sanity. Republicans and Democrats are only beginning to understand the sea change underneath them. What's happening gives strength to individuals to know that a small percentage of an enlightened population can nudge the general population to the right.

[Dan Riehl]

"Isn't the point that she gives some mass, not direction"

How is her suggesting the GOP swallow it up, which she did say, not giving it direction? Her speech was highly partisan, in fact. I'm not sure that's the best path for the TP movement right now.

[Jeff]

she says Ideas not Personalities and the Tea Party should be leaderless ... sounds like she's ready to turn down the job ...

On track to turn down the job Dan ...

[Jeff]

Just more Red on Red fragging by the non leader of Red on Red fragging, but he's on track to become one ...

[Mondo]

Agree with Sissy Willis and Chris Todd's comments.

Also, the convention in Nashville was a marriage of convenience: the people putting on the convention rode the Tea Party brand to the bank and I'm guessing Palin committed to the event before that fact became obvious. I'm a big booster for the Tea Party movement; the mediafest in Nashville? Not so much.

And if memory serves, Palin was among the first to enthusiastically support the Tea Party movement while Romney and other heavyweights didn't say much.

Many of your other points are well-taken.

I'm not sure how Palin's staying out of contests where her endorsement would be more of a distraction than a help should be cause for criticism.

And, while saddling her with a 0 for Hoffman's bid is correct, leadership isn't about putting your finger in the wind and waiting for a winner. There's a ton of that now: it's one reason most people are repelled by "leaders" on both sides of the aisle.

[Huey]

I'm creating straw men, Dan?

Even though Palin didn't even imply that she had anything to do with the wins in NJ, MA, and VA, you said: "Those aren't wins in which Sarah Palin played any real part."

Palin clearly states that there should be no "leader" of a national tea party movement, but you question her motives for speaking: "If Palin now sees the Tea Party movement as a means of building her own base for 2012, the real question might be, who needs whom more? Does the Tea Party movement need Sarah Palin? It didn't need her in VA, NJ or Mass. Or, does she need it?"

Where does she say that she's going to use the Tea Party movement as a base? Where does she say that the tea party movement needs her?

And, you accuse ME of erecting straw men?

[Bryan McRoberts]

Dan,
your concerns are valid, but with regards to her suggesting that the GOP swallow up the TP, that was a recommendation for the GOP, not the TP. The difference is that it could only happen if the GOP largely adopt the TP agenda. The same goes true for the blue dogs, whom she spoke of affirmatively. The blue dogs could tap into the TP enthusiasm if they adopt more of the TP agenda. She said she'd campaign for democrats as well, so she wasn't partisan in the typical root for GOP or DEM way, but she was partisan in the root for TP way.

I think she was being coy, but there isn't any other way to walk the tight-rope of wanting to energize the TP, and not wanting it to be co-opted to any specific party, and help give it direction, and leave the possibility open that she might run in 2012. I don't think she's made up her mind on that yet, it will depend on how things go in the next year or so. She must have made a specific decision to stay out of the MA election, so her willingness to do that shows that she doesn't think the TP is all about her. She wants to get good people in congress, even if that means her steering clear. Could Obama do that? No - to him the difference between 94 and 10 is him. Obama is 0-3 in campaigns he has tried to help. Palin didn't make any claims about elections where she's tried to help (though I think her help for Hoffman was merely verbal, I don't recall her actually making any public appearances, and one could argue that Scozzafazza purposely threw the race).

Just my $0.02.

[alwaysfiredup]

"How is her suggesting the GOP swallow it up, which she did say, not giving it direction? Her speech was highly partisan, in fact. I'm not sure that's the best path for the TP movement right now."

Um. She came out against third parties there, Dan. I thought you would have caught that. I presume she did not advocate joining the Dem party because the Dems are...not her cup of tea. What is, in your considered opinion, the best path for the TP movement right now?

[Bill Peschel]

Sorry, Dan, but I don't understand. Where did she say she helped with the wins in NJ, Va and Mass?

Mind, I didn't see the speech, just yours and David Weigel's summary. Did she say something that you're not quoting?

From what I'm reading, I'm seeing more of an alignment with her goals and the TP movement, and a lot of unsupported speculation. Unless you're concluding that, by simply making a speech, she is somehow seizing control of the movement, which seems to be A.C. Kleinheider's point. But there's a big difference between expressing support and "seizing control."

[ThomasD]

A "caution against allowing this movement to be defined by one leader or operation...” is hardly leaderless, more a recommendation to keep multiple horses in the race.

[clarice]

In my opinion it would be a terrible mistake for their to be a leader of the Tea Party right now. It's strength is that it is a ground up operation. And as soon as their is a leader, the attacks will be aimed at that person and divisions will form. She's right to argue against a single leader until after the 2010 elections.

[Ted]

This post makes no sense. Just because she is lending her support and her megaphone to a movement that she says doesn't need a leader, does not mean she is trying to be their leader. If she says that the tea party put together wins in NY, NJ, and MA, how does that show that she needs them for her "base"? I am not aware of any office she is running for, are you? What does her support of Hoffman have to do with any of this? I would say nothing. In fact, I think she smartly recognizes that candidates that have a strong tea party contingent don't always need a polarizing figure to take attention away from the non-partisan support that they are generating. Brown mentioned the GOP very seldom during his campaign, does that mean that the GOP shouldn't take credit for his victory? No, it means that Brown was smart enough to know that he is getting support on all sides due to the train wreck in DC, and by staking out a strong party position he would alienate those who supported him on his small government pledges and his vote against Obamacare. Makes perfect sense why Sarah would opt out of some of these campaigns...not sure why it doesn't to you.

[bob sanders]

Gov. Palin's comments about the GOP and the Tea PArty sounded to me like she meant that the GOP needed to become more like the TEa PArty and take some it's ideas if it wants to win. She didn't make any claims about helping those three races. Those are some pretty big straw men you're throwing up there yourself.

[Huey]

Mondo: Good analysis.

I disagree with Palin on whether the tea party movement needs national leaders.

If there were local tea party rallies all over the nation last night in which people stood up and gave speeches, would the world have noticed? Haven't we been down that road a few times, with millions of people?

Get Palin on stage, and, suddenly the cameras not only appear, but her entire speech gets aired (as well as others).

Who else on the face of the planet could have caused that to happen?

To say that the tea party movement doesn't want "leaders" is to misunderstand the fundamental impetus for their creation.

What caused the tea parties to form in the first place was the fact that our "leaders" in Washington weren't listening to their constituents. Health care, spending, taxing, energy policy, bail-outs, governmental takeovers of the private sector, etc. Our "leaders" were attempting to implement (and had implemented) an agenda which, in great part, was against the values of the majority of Americans.

So, individually, members of the "tea party movement" rose up and said "STOP."

Had our "leaders" stopped, reversed course -- the tea party movement, having achieved its purpose, would have died in its infancy.

But, no "stoppage" occurred.

So, the "tea party movement" began to grow, individually and nationally (march on Washington, co-ordinated April 15 protests, etc.) -- again, with a single message: "STOP!"

But, no "stoppage" occurred.

So, the tea party movement then did what they could to cause the "stoppage" themselves -- by supporting and getting elected "leaders" who WOULD "stop" the insanity.

Recognizing that the only way to "stop" this agenda is to elect "leaders" who WILL "stop" this agenda, the "tea party movement" has moved beyond shouting at our current crop of "leaders" and is now actively engaged in electing a new crop of more responsive "leaders."

Thus, when, in November, if sufficient numbers of "leaders" who are responsive to and representative of the "tea party movement" are elected, the "tea party movement," having achieved the purpose that caused its creation, will simply die away.

The remarkable thing about the tea party movement is the degree to which the individual members were not, previously, engaged in politics. There's a reason for this. Like most of us (the vast, vast, vast majority of us) they have full lives, in which there's neither room nor time to fully engage themselves in the political wars. Therefore, they leave that up to the "leaders" -- SO LONG as those leaders are at least appearing to be responsive to them as voters -- SO LONG as their representatives at least appear to be representing them.

The same thing which makes their current engagement tends to indicate that the vast, vast, vast majority of the tea party movement's individual members, once their purpose is fulfilled (getting responsive representatives) will, again, return to their previous full lives, essentially vanishing the tea party movement as an electoral force.

But, that will be BECAUSE the tea party members, individually, are satisfied that their chosen "leaders" are representative of them. Thus, the tea party movement isn't (nor should it be) opposed to "leaders" -- they just want ones who reflect their values rather than ones who are opposed to them.

[ThomasD]

I probably should add that we must not confuse leadership with hierarchy. People can be free to choose leaders they may follow. Hierarchy is an imposition, and that would be most unwelcome at this time.

[Rob Crawford]

Um, Dan, Palin didn't pocket the speaking fee. She even said so in the speech.

[Rachel]

Notice how no one will even give Riehl's rather mild criticism the benefit of doubt. That alone is a major red flag of demagoguery taking place. From the commentary, it seems that there is no difference btwn a Obama fanatic or a Palin fan. Both seem to want a cult of personality who will take care of everything and create a utopia.

[Jason]

So, let me get this straight...

1. Palin says that the tea party movement needs no central leader
2. Palin says that the tea party movement was successful in NJ, VA, and MA
3. From this Dan Riehl concludes that Palin is claiming success for NJ, VA, and MA

This is very poor logic, Dan. You are assuming that Palin thinks she's the leader of the tea party movement, and therefore, when she credits the tea partiers with success, she's really crediting herself. Yet she claimed neither that she was the leader of the tea partiers, nor that she was instrumental in any of their success. You're making the whole thing up based upon your assumption that she intends to co-opt the movement - something she specifically warned against letting anyone do.

I think you are right to fear Palin (or Newt, or Romney) attempting to co-opt the movement. You are wrong to project this fear on a speech that specifically warned about such an attempt, and make unsupported conclusions based on your fear.

[Dan Riehl]

"Palin didn't pocket the speaking fee"

Yes, she did. Spare me the BS half-truths. When a pol PACkets money, they pocket it. It's her to do what she wants with, not anyone elses.

As for NJ, VA and Mass - I never said she took credit for them. Stop assuming things because you see Palin's name and lose your ability to process intelligent thought.

[PE]

Notice how her speech completely ignored the most compelling question our nation faces: how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

[Karen Sullivan]

I'm amused by the "pundits" who can't think out of the box. They think that every national political figure *must* be angling for the Presidency.

For this, and many other reasons, they don't get Sarah Palin and never will. Too busy draping her in their own assumptions, they misinterpret just about everything she does or says. Sarah Palin is a straight arrow. That's why she resonates with the people. That's why she took on the Republican machine in Alaska, and that's why she resigned the Governorship in Alaska. She won't be muzzled. She's said many times that she can help her country even without being in office.

I would be disappointed if she runs in 2012 - I like her out here with us, keeping politicians accountable instead of trying to curry favor with the very machine that lost its way.

[martin j smith]

A bit too much and too soon concern about Sarah Palin or anyone else. The 2010 elections are key. I suspect that no one co-opt anyone. The Tea Party Movement is Anti-Socialism or the Democrat Party agenda. It is not necessarily pro whatever except the free market. Its " leave us alone" that is the engine.

[Karen Sullivan]

"unless she's totally oblivious to the star power that earned her 100k for her speech last night"

Gee, Dan, I'm amused that you neglected to mention that she's putting that money back into the Tea Party. Are you being coy?

[Dusty]

"At the very least, it strikes me as a bit coy for Palin to suggest the movement doesn't need a leader, while looking as though she's planning to become it at the same time."

I haven't listened to or read her speech yet. Did she really say it should be leaderless? Your excerpts show she was saying "I caution against allowing this movement to be defined by one leader or operation" and "bigger than any king or queen of the tea party".

... one leader or operation ...
... any King or Queen ...

That doesn't mean she thinks it should be leaderless. No movement can leaderless, Dan, so why are you letting McClatchy's Kathleen Hennessey interpret what Palin's says and promote it as what was actually said?

[Karen Sullivan]

Martin: "The Tea Party Movement is Anti-Socialism or the Democrat Party agenda. It is not necessarily pro whatever except the free market. Its " leave us alone" that is the engine."

Yes, it's about those negative rights that have Obama's undies in a wad.

[Kentucky Colonel]

Riehl, at times you can be a pig-headed fool. You continue to be hung up on her fee, but your argument is foolish. She spoke at a for-profit affair and she's using the fee to help other like-minded individuals with their political endeavors.

It's also time for you to hang it up concerning your criticisms of the TPC. The attendees got what they paid for and the event gave the TP movement more positive coverage than it's ever gotten.

Take off your CPAC hat and read the tea leaves. The TP'ers will make things happen and the CPACers will be left in the dust if they don't change their attitudes.

For a smart guy, you can write some pretty dumb things sometimes.

BTW, you never did answer my question about her contract with the WSB re fees for speaking at for-profit organizations.

[Huey]

Dan: You said: "As for NJ, VA and Mass - I never said she took credit for them."

You said, in your original post: "But she invoked the recent GOP wins in NJ, VA and Mass. Those aren't wins in which Sarah Palin played any real part."

Now, perhaps there's some other implication to "Those aren't wins in which Sarah Palin played any real part." than one implying that she took undeserved credit for those wins, but I can't conceive of one.

[Dusty]

Notice how no one will even give Riehl's rather mild criticism the benefit of doubt. That alone is a major red flag of demagoguery taking place. From the commentary, it seems that there is no difference btwn a Obama fanatic or a Palin fan. Both seem to want a cult of personality who will take care of everything and create a utopia.

[Posted by: Rachel | Sunday, February 07, 2010 at 10:47 AM]

If it's wrong, it doesn't matter whether it is mild or harsh.

[Karen Sullivan]

From the commentary, it seems that there is no difference btwn a Obama fanatic or a Palin fan. Both seem to want a cult of personality who will take care of everything and create a utopia.

Yo Rachel, Palin isn't running or promising to "help" people better live their lives. That's for Progressives.

Sorry that you can't seem to tell the difference.

At times like this I think of my dad, who bemoaned that ignorant people get the same number of votes as informed people.

[tm]

Well that was a waste of time, thanks for nothing instapundit.

[furious]

The Tea Party movement may not need a leader, but it certainly needs a Pitchman. Think of Ms. Palin more like William Shatner for Priceline (quick, who is Priceline's CEO or VP of Marketing?)

We can debate the choice of pitchman, but it is a sound strategy.

This accomplishes a couple of things--it allows the 'ground game' to continue unhindered by Joe Wurzelbacher-like official/unofficial harassment while press-facetime goes to a widely recognized individual (i.e., she draws a crowd) who by-the-way has already had the kitchen sink thrown at them by the press and blog stalkers. The pitchman, in the meantime, keeps the movement front-and-center of the national attention span with their notoriety and ability to draw microphones, cameras and crowds.

The MSNBCs and Andrew Sullivans of the world have only so many cycles to devote to opponent-stalking. Palin draws their notice, consumes their news cycles and exposes their batsh*t craziness for all to see while the local or national organizers can go about their work without being stalked, harassed, or "put in the sytem" as Joe Wurzelbacher was.

The Iron Triangle of the Chattering Classes, Legacy Media, and, well, Soros can engage either the distributed, de-centralized, and dug-in-all-around-the-country Tea Party groups invidually, or they can go after their bete noire. Which, do you think, is the easier target? The easier target, by the way, having already had the kitchen sink and the bathtub thrown at them already? And yet there she is on Facebook, still teasing them through the bars of their cages.

[Scott]

Dan, 0 for 2? So I guess the 0 for 1 is NY-23. If I remember correctly, until Sarah got involved, Hoffman was a distant third in the race. After her endorsement, he almost won the race, and taking into account the recent voting irregularities, may have actually won. The Republican Party gave us Scozzafava, a more liberal candidate than the Democrat. Maybe you forgot that.

[csm]

I love it that the tea party has no central leader and the only people having a problem with it is the media. It's so hard to do their "job" when no one will give them a target. It's unfortunate when ideas and outcomes have to be compared instead of the promotion of supposed incredibly intelligent persons with their superior temperament. The people, the more the merrier, need to be the driving force.

[ern]

Nice try, Dan, but putting the money into a PAC isn't pocketing it. Pocketing it would be spending the money on herself personally, or even on her own election campaign. But she's not running for anything. Instead, she plowed it into a PAC that's got nearly identical principles as the Tea Party movement. It doesn't suit your argument to admit that, but it's still true.

Your comment, "If Palin now sees the Tea Party movement as a means of building her own base for 2012..." only reveals that you haven't been paying attention at all. She seems to know (and say over and over again) that this isn't about leaders (including herself) but about the movement itself. But rather than try to see things from that perspective, you're insistent about her running for president. You're delusional. And from the comments here, I can see I'm not the only one who thinks so. Everything in her speech pointed to the precise opposite of what you suggest. The only conclusion is that you think Palin lied over and over again through her teeth. Sorry, but that's just plain crazy.

[AWH (Buanadha)]

This is a bit of a bizarre discussion, because this doesn't seem to be difficult situation to figure out.

1. While I am sure she wants the Republican party to become the party most acceptable to the Tea Party movement, it's because her political instincts are closer to that of the tea party than to the establishment Republican party.

2. Sure she wants a power base, but it is in alignment with her more libertarian instincts for the Tea Party to remain leaderless. Does she want their support? Sure. Does she want to be their "leader"? I don't think so. I think she wants to be the leader of a resurgent Republican party that has incorporated the thinking and earned the support of the Tea Party.

3. I see the Tea Party as the primary mover for the recent election wins. They may not have had "Tea Party" candidates, but the key issues of those elections were defined and framed through the tea party movement. Without the tea party, it's likely that the press would have kept the issues of this administration and congress hidden enough to keep those elections as Democratic wins.

As for this speech, it served its purpose for the Tea Party Movement and for Palin.

[rrpjr]

Both seem to want a cult of personality who will take care of everything and create a utopia.
Posted by: Rachel | Sunday, February 07, 2010 at 10:47 AM

Seems a bit extreme. In my travels I've noticed that most Palin supporters seem refreshingly aware of her imperfections, and comparatively mature in their understanding of, and distinctions between, political virtues and personal limitations. And I view the critiques of the original post well thought-out and encouraging. They strike me as almost the opposite of fanatical.

I too did not hear in Palin's speech any self aggrandizing nod to her role in recent elections. And it is indisputable that the tea party movement was influential in those elections. I suppose you can impute disingenuousness or opportunism to her simultaneous call for a decentralized movement and the fact she speaks before this and other tea party gatherings. I'd call it political good sense, with possibly as much conviction as self-interest. This is what makes human beings tick, and good leaders need it.

I would suggest there is a kind of inverse fanaticism going on, one having to do with expectations of "Palin purity."

[B Stile]

"Another reality may be even more cause for concern. I don't know that she rewrote history as much as Dave Weigel suggests. But she invoked the recent GOP wins in NJ, VA and Mass. Those aren't wins in which Sarah Palin played any real part."

No, you did not say "She played a part." You simply implied it.

What is the meaning of "is"?

[Mister Snitch!]

"At the very least, it strikes me as a bit coy for Palin to suggest the movement doesn't need a leader, while looking as though she's planning to become it at the same time."

As always, Dan is an independent thinker.

The problem with Palin's statement might be that it's disingenuous, and her hidden agenda is to be made a leader of the Tea Partiers. (One could argue that this has already happened, de facto.)

But it's even worse if it's not, since it suggests a profound ignorance of human history. Humans ALWAYS set other humans above them as leaders. It's how we behave, as a social species. (The fact that these leaders generally aren't worth crap is irrelevant. We do it ANYWAY.)

A third possibility, though, is that Palin is sincere and wants to use her influence ONLY to forestall the (inevitable) anointing of Tea Party leaders. Along these lines, she definitely wants the movement to come less under the sway of Republicans (who increasingly want to be associated with it) and more a place for 'independents' and even - gasp - Democrats. If Republican leaders emerged as Tea Party heads, that would end its attractiveness to third parties.

Since the Republican Party pretty much failed Palin (from her POV anyway), I can see where she'd be looking for a new political base. The Tea Party (gee, Democratic Party... Republican Party... Tea Party...) is that base. But she's still seen as a "Republican", and if she takes the stance of a Tea Party leader now, the Tea Party will be seen, and become, a club for Republicans. It's too soon for Palin to 'move in' as it were - but note how she's been severing her Republican ties. Not burning bridges, just getting some distance. And notice also how she loves bringing up her husband's LACK of Republican affiliation.

So, I think she's got her foot firmly in the door, but she's not ready to take a place at the table. On the other hand, she doesn't want anyone ELSE at the head of that table, either.

It's an interesting situation.

[NHail]

Sorry Dan, you missed on this one.

You seem unusually defensive about it also.

I watched the recorded speech. She simply didn't communicate the positions you are arguing.

So far jason hit the nail on the head:
1. Palin says that the tea party movement needs no central leader
2. Palin says that the tea party movement was successful in NJ, VA, and MA
3. From this Dan Riehl concludes that Palin is claiming success for NJ, VA, and MA

This is very poor logic, Dan. You are assuming that Palin thinks she's the leader of the tea party movement, and therefore, when she credits the tea partiers with success, she's really crediting herself. Yet she claimed neither that she was the leader of the tea partiers, nor that she was instrumental in any of their success. You're making the whole thing up based upon your assumption that she intends to co-opt the movement - something she specifically warned against letting anyone do.

[wizard61]

I think the author is depserately looking for something to complain about, but not find much that makes sense.

[Kentucky Colonel]

I think Palin's role in the TP movement is to keep the momentum going. There is no one else who has that ability. That doesn't make her the leader.

[Son of the South]

I live in Massachusetts. I like Sarah Palin - a lot.

The Scott Brown phenomenon in Massachusetts had NOTHING whatsoever to do with Sarah Palin. In fact, had Sarah Palin inserted herself into the Brown campaign, I think she probably would have inadvertently destroyed it.

The key to Scott Brown's amazing upset was that he appealed to Massachusetts' HUGE independent bloc which is cynical as hell. These people aren't members of the Republican Party - nor are they social conservatives.

They see Sarah Palin as just another phony politician.

Scott Brown brought authenticity and a record of success to the table and spoke to the people where his opponent, Martha Coakley, did not.

The anti-government, anti-party, anti-politics middle class in Massachusetts are well aware of Palin's blank resume and they will continue to avoid her like the plague.

Brown wasn't elected because people here in Massachusetts hate Dems or Obama or hated Ted Kennedy. They (we) elected him because we honestly think he's going to get stuff done.

You betcha!