I’d write more tonight but I’m quite tired-out at this hour so I’m postponing more writing until tomorrow, but, suffice it to say at this moment that Sarah Palin’s speech moments ago from the Tea Party Convention in Nashville, TN was excellent. Wonderful. I’ll return to explain why I think so in about
fifteen hours twenty-four hours.
Twenty-seven hours later:
Sarah Palin’s speech from Nashville this past Saturday was delivered by Palin without so much as one union member standing beside or behind her on stage and no teleprompter in sight.
She clearly had a written speech (notes) before her from whence she was referring off and on but that’s what speeches are supposed to be — contrary to the overtly, overly polished renditions by Barack Obama, who “performs” “appearances” with his teleprompters and read-along switching head-flips, Palin connects with audience members by speaking to (and looking at) them and I find this believably sincere and endearing about her. Obama’s been grossly disappointing and now is offensive with his performances that are rendered and orchestrated to a point of falseness (his).
By comparison, there’s Sarah Palin, an indivdual among others, actually speaking on a stage and not lecturing toward some point of objectivication such as Obama’s become characterised by; Obama’s exhausted his credibility in this regard while Palin’s only begun to gather friends and confidence.
I loved Palin’s ongoing phrases and statements very worthy of commemorating, among them this prize:
“We need a Commander in Chief, not a professor of law, standing at the lecturn.”
And so many other succinct, simply put and straightforward, intelligent statements, among which were these:
On National Security: “We can also be conquered by ignoring our Constitution.”
Palin made several more emphatic declarations about the imminent importance our National Security in regards, particularly, terrorism and that we are, indeed, at war and not in a court room — sharing my view that terrorists should not be adjudicated in U.S. courts and afforded Constitutional Rights parallel with U.S. citizens, but regarded as enemy combatants (though I don’t recall Palin using that phrase to refer to them, she did refer to that concept as to terrorists contained by the U.S. in acts of threat upon our nation).
On the Obama Administration’s duplicity (among other failings, contrary to their oft-repeated campaign devotionals):
“They held a Transparency Meeting behind closed doors.”
Referring to TARP as “a slush fund,” Palin questions “where are the consequences” in regards a failed economic policy (TARP, etc.) by the Obama Administration in “bailing out” business and avoiding results of wrong actions.
Big government failure: “people have had enough of D.C. not listening to them,” which received a standing ovation with loud applause — the audience jumped to their feet clapping in agreement with this.
On the Obama Administration and Democrat-Majority Congress’ healthcare monstrosity: “(We should) start all over (with) this health care scheme & pursue market-based…reform…those things that are commonplace reform.”
That statement right there was Palin emphasizing the importance of and dedication to Capitalism and limited government (reduced taxes and regulation by implication) to a successful Democratic Republic, such as our nation is supposed to be (but isn’t with Socialism working of late to condemn if not eliminate Capitalism).
This was sweet, smart and endearing folksiness: “If you can’t ride two horses at once, you shouldn’t be in the circus.”
About this, I am not yet sold and remain curious just what, specifically, Palin means (because it could be a good thing but it could also be a problem): “We need to deliver carbon-free energy.”
Sticks the truth where it should be stuck: “We need to kill Cap’n’Tax…kill the plans for the second Stimulus…being referred to as a Jobs Bill.”
Regarding her in any political context: “How can I best serve” (the U.S.A., “serve our country”); “we’re looking for a leader to progress this movement,” in reference to attitudes and perspectives that have attracted Americans to the Tea Party movement.
As to the U.S.A., then, on governing the nation: “the Constitution provides THE roadmap for the more perfect union.” Another standing ovation from the audience and immense support and enthusiasm from me on this statement if none others Palin made.
About governing and the people congregating as the Tea Party movement: “we are the keepers of Conservative values.”
Sarah Palin is to be commended for referring to and emphasizing the phrase “Conservative values” as to the “values” aspect, after “values” have been so routinely denigrated if not suppressed among many on the Right and certainly by Liberals — “values” are important to all individuals, yet the word is ridiculed all too often in recent times.
Palin began to conclude with suggesting this, about which I also agree: “the Republican Party would be really smart to become part of the Tea Party movement.”
Sarah Palin then recalled Ronald Reagan, made mention of the fact that this day of her speech, Saturday (02/06/10) was the birthday of Reagan, and she verged on tears while doing so, saying, “I do believe that America is still that shining city on a hill…thank you for being a part of this movement and God Bless the U.S.A.”
She walked off the stage with an endearing wave to the audience — who were engaged in another standing ovation as she left.
Afterward, Palin reappeared on stage with Fox News’ Judd Berger for a seated interview before the audience; the transcript of that is here, which everyone even so much as curious about Palin should read.
I’ve warmed to Sarah Palin as potential President immensely in the past months — reading her book, reading her opinions as she writes them for public access on facebook.com (which is a smart method of delivery in that regard, and, that she keeps these updates frequent, lively and writes in-depth about what she believes and perceives).
Additionally, she appeared yesterday on Fox News with an interview by Chris Wallace, and quickly cleared up two big discrepancies:
(1.) Palin affirmed she would run for President, as follows: “I would, I would if I thought that was the right thing to do for our country and for the Palin family”; and,
(2.) That she’d resigned her office as Governor of Alaska because it was a “lame-duck” term (she would not be eligible to run again due to term limits) and to conclude the ongoing plethora of junk-ethics-lawsuits being filed against the state by political agitators and other opponents; by resigning, she removed herself as target of these junk suits and saved the state of Alaska the money and resources being used otherwise to contend with them; when Wallace suggested she’d “lost” by resigning, she disagreed roundly and exclaimed, “no, I won, we won!”
About which, I agree. It was also an exceptionally nervy thing for Palin to have done — it rallied critics among the political class in both parties but made practical (and also considerate) sense to Palin and those who appreciated why and what she’d done, especially since she left the State of Alaska with a Conservative individual to assume the Gubernatorial position after her departure.
On the appearances levels:
I like that Sarah Palin’s of wholesome appearance, energetic to a point of being spunky, a dedicated parent, mom and wife to a man she loves (that’s apparent) who isn’t a squishy guy, either — real people here, responsible, functional, constructive, reasonably educated but not attitudinal or condescending in that regard. I like that Palin’s not a smoker, doesn’t exist in or dwell among party-circuits or celebrity-needy types and find her (and her family) refreshing in these regards.
…Versus what daily I see and hear from and by the two Obamas in the White House: tired, distrustful, worn and bleary due to life-style behaviors (among other things, I’m guessing, particularly as to their beliefs) and particularly as to their distance-from-reality that just comes down as generally egotistical and grouchy or, rather, resentful, bitter, unhappy people despite all the media push to present these two as “celebrity,” they come off as being expensive, worn, noisy, widgets, who demand huge excesses in operating costs, deployed to drown out any other message.