Palin’s Strange Teabagger Brew

I admit I just didn’t have the stomach to watch Sarah Baracuda‘s speech to the Teabaggers last night. But from what I’ve gleaned from various commentators is that she struck to two basic themes: national security and the Obama Administration’s Keynesian attempts to salvage the US economy by spending (and lending) lots of money.

Naturally, these are the main Rethug themes going into the next two national elections and nothing she said, either during the speech or in the heavily scripted Q & A that followed, apparently added anything new. Here’s her trying to stay on message when asked the question:

When we have a conservative house and a conservative senate, as soon as that happens, what do you think are the top three things that have to get done?

Sarah’s palm reading divinations

Give her credit, she at least remembered the first point, cutting spending, but needed help remembering the last two, something about energy and returning the country to God.

Juan Cole in his blog today made some basic points about some of the Constitutional issues relevant to the national security debate that has the Rethugs in such a lather, especially as concerns the handling of the Underwear Bomber. I too have wondered why their main talking point, that simply not reading trained terrorists their Miranda rights would magically cause them to spew everything they know about other terrorist operations, as if they were too stupid to understand the basic premise behind need-to-know.

Says Juan:

Sarah Palin’s turn before the teabaggers was an exercise in emptying the US Constitution of meaning while seeming to exalt it.

She praised US military personnel for defending the constitution.

But she complained that constitutional protections were offered to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the underpants bomber. She said it is ‘our’ constitution, reducing it from a universal document (the Declaration of Independence says ‘all men’ are endowed with inalienable rights) to a tribal one.

She said Abdulmutallab could otherwise have been questioned. But why should he have answered, rights or no? Holder‘s methods got him talking.

Juan  concludes by describing  Palin to a T, and further notes our corporatist media’s obsession with her:

She is not about law, but is about power. We’ve had enough narcissistic sociopaths in politics.

And note that Jerry Brown, e.g. Would not be put on CNN addressing 600 leftwing democrats in prime time. I’m afraid of Time Warner now.

I’m leaning towards the analysis that, despite some short term benefit that the Teabaggers might provide the GOP in the 2010 elections, their not so subtle racism (see Tom Tancredo‘s opening remarks), their paranoia and fundamental anti-American secession talk will hurt them in the medium and long run.

If Queen Sarah wants to lead that rabble, all the better.

Prove you're human: leave a comment.