"I think he's on something."

Fixed it for you.

Sort of a "who peed in my tea cup?" attitude. Is this guy an America First isolationist? Sorry, but it is a bigger and much more dangerous world than that and I don't think we have the luxury of insulating ourselves and ignoring the rest of the world.

Perhaps the only real error that was made involved the use of the word "convention". Or, better yet, what we Americans consider a "convention". Wiki describes it as thus:

"In politics, a political convention is a meeting of a political party, typically to select party candidates.

In the United States, a political convention usually refers to a presidential nominating convention, but it can also refer to state, county, or congressional district nominating conventions."

This particular event would be better described as a gathering of people with similar political ideas.

The writer goes out of his way to tell us that Sarah Palin offered nothing by way of a "plan" or positions on the usual and customary political agenda, but it wasn't designed to do that at all! In fact, it was designed to be just the opposite.

What the Tea Party "Convention" actually involved was a gathering of lots of people with like political thoughts and feelings; the exchange of ideas to promote political candidates who would advance those political opinions and ideas and how best to go about doing just that.

To that end, Sarah Palin did exactly as she should have done, and was expected to do.
This particular gathering was NOT, in the purist sense, a political convention - designed to set party policy, nominate candidates, etc., etc., but they chose to call it that anyway.

When the time comes to nominate candidates, set a party platform and do most all of the things a "political convention" does, you can rest assured that those things will be addressed, if the political situation warrants.

The establishment in Washington has refused to recognize any opinion other than their own. Perhaps today they better understand that much of America is VERY unhappy with them and the warning has been issued. Listen up or Pack up!

I honestly don't see the Tea Party going anywhere. Here's why: everyone wants smaller government. Even leftists want smaller government. They want to scrap the fleet and halve the army.

The issue is that everyone has things they consider vital. Since the Constitution is dead, we can't use that to say what programs are allowed and not. So we get is a whole country full of people, each of them with a pet program or project, and so they all get funded.

The Tea Party trends older. Go up there and give a speech calling for the end of the crushing entitlement programs that are bankrupting this country: Social Security and Medicare. See how you're received.

At this point the GOP and the Democrats are both stuck. The old are too big a voting bloc, too powerful to cross. You cannot end SS or Medicare, but they are the problem. So the GOP proposes ending earmarks or cutting discretionary spending. The Dems, well, they throw their hands up and shovel as much cash to their supporters as they can before the roof falls in.

I don't see a way out. It is political suicide to fix the system, which means you can lie about your plans (the Obama method)and then be shut down by public opinion or you can be honest and never even win the election.

The Tea Party isn't a party, it's a bunch of people who are sick of big gov't and corrupt politicians.
Getting rid of corrupt politicians is a bi-partisan affair, but getting rid of big gov't is a Republican affair.

The tea partier want America to be small-gov't types, so the tea party has to take over the GOP, the other way around ain't gonna happen.

The Tea Party protests weren't a top down thing, they were a bunch of people who wanted Washington to know they're pissed off and who heard about a protest they could go to.
The Tax Day Tea Party in DC was a lunch-time affair. There was probably no more than a couple thousand there at one time, but it was a working day crowd who came on their lunch hours. So it wasn't the same 1,500 people standing in the rain at 1 who were there at 11:30.

They didn't go because they were card-carrying members of a Tea Party, they went because they were pissed off.

There is no Tea Party. There are only tea partiers.

If you really truly believe he "is on to something", I've been reading the wrong blog.

And you didn't listen to (or read a transcript of) her speech.

I think you're wrong.
It's a movement not a party.
The Sons of Liberty weren't a party either.

He's right that the GOP would prefer to co-opt the Tea Party rather than be co-opted by it, and that Palin seems to be too much in the McCain mold to be its natural leader. But it's premature to say that the Tea Party is dead.

Veeshir nailed it! Tere's no "tea Party' , thank goodness! We've already seenthe destructive power of third party whacko-ism, when Ross Perot hand Slick Willie the White House on two occasions!

As Sarah noted, Tea Partiers need to seize the Republican Party and turn out the Countryclub bluebloods and RINOs and CINOs.

I am not sure how Sarah Palin can "hijack" something she was invited to. She specifically said the movement was about ideas and should not be about personalities. She did the exact opposite of hijacking. She encouraged the grassroots movement to continue as a grassroots movement and to avoid becoming centralized with a single leader. Is she popular with the Tea Party people? Wildly, but not because she's hijacked a leadership role. It's because she's essentially their most visible member.

"Getting rid of corrupt politicians is a bi-partisan affair"

There is no evidence Democrats have any interest in that. Rather, there is plenty of evidence they consider corruption their natural right.

I agree with Maxx'x comment. And I also agree with this one from the commentary on this issue from Uncle Jimbo's website:

The Tea Party movement needs to be extremely careful not to become a tool of Sarah, Newt, or any other politician/party that is trying to latch onto it. Politicians too often are opportunists, usually for their own gain, and I distrust any persons motives when I hear she is also slated to speak at the Nevada and Boston Mass Tea Partys.
I undertsand she gave some great talking points at the convention and good for her and the crowd if that’s what they wanted/expected from her speaking. By being the key speaker at a number of these events, this movement runs the risk of being attached to her star and if that happens this ground swell of voter who are pissed off and angry at their government, will undoubtedly lose followers and momentum.

I'm 43. Get rid of medicare and social insecurity tomorrow and I will cheer. Next question.

I am one of those people who have been a Republican my entire life. I am also someone who has watched the TEA party movement with a lot of interest because I truly sympathize with them. I feel betrayed by all of our political leadership no matter what party they are members of.

Because of my interest in the TEA party movement I have read most of the articles that I have found about it over the last year or so. I have come to the conclusion that beneath all of the rhetoric that the fault lines over the movement in general, and Sarah Palin in particular, are religious. I am what is usually described as an evangelical Christian even though I do not use that term myself (a lot of people use it as an insult). I have come to believe that it is evangelical Christians such as me who like Sarah Palin. I haven’t, nor will I try to, define those who seem to get queasy at the mere mention of her name.

Whenever I see an article like the one you link to by A.C. Kleinheider I will try and check out some of the writer’s previous columns to get a sense of their worldview. Well, Mr. Kleinheider seems to be someone who would be much more comfortable with, say, a Christopher Buckley Republican than someone like me. It seems that Mr. Kleinheider has generated his fair share of controversy over the years but I found one of the comments after this article to be most interesting:

Let’s see. We’re talking about the same guy who says that Vladimir Putin “eh, not such a bad fella”. Probably just a coincidence that Russia is the third most dangerous country in the world for jouranlist but no…Putin’s far too smart for that.

That fired, foul-mouth, anti-Christian John Edwards blogger “Amanda Marcotte is a woman of honor” for the noble act of falling on her sword rather forcing Silky Pony to be a man and make an executive decision and fire her. Even though she complained ad nauseum about it afterwards. Honor, it seems, has an expiration date.

Who practically had to have a restraining order against him to keep him from throwing himself at Harold Ford Jr. Who voted for Ford because a deranged leftard nutbar like Chris Lugo wasn’t politically savvy enough for his tastes.

“This dreadlocked fiend has neither the presentation nor the authentic leftist views that I can get down with.”

Edwards pimping his wife’s breast cancer to tweak his failing candidacy. Tut, tut you cynics. Silky is man at his most man. But mention Romney’s wife’s illness and you’re just pathetic.

“Hey, remember, our candidate has a dying wife, too! Don’t forget us. Goodness, that’s pathetic. Let the Edward have their specific sympathy today.”

There’s more. Plenty more. Little cartoons showing Condoleeza Rice as being a white woman in black face.

WKRN’s “conservative” sociopath who ingratiates himself by brown-nosing leftists.

And as long as he “toes their line”, they are more than happy to pay him to do it.

By smantix on 03.23.07 9:28 pm

Well, if that is A.C. Kleinheider then Sarah Palin must have done something right.

Glenn

I have come to believe that it is evangelical Christians such as me who like Sarah Palin.

That seems to be the case. But just as Bush let your down, Palin will do the same. Your enemies enemy is not neccessarily your friend.

"cut social programs, especially those that protect the elderly, the young, the ill?"...These are not specified in the Constitution as a federal area of jurisdiction, so YES, cut them.

"cut subsidies that have been around since the First World War, but most of those are directed towards agriculture"....These are not specified in the Constitution as a federal area of jurisdiction, so YES, cut them.

Nothing is stopping each state from having it's own programs in these areas.

"The US spends more per capita on its military than on anything else".....That is one of the few areas defined as a federal jurisdiction. Although I have a problem with some of the costs, I have no problem with the US spending on its military.

"I have come to believe that it is evangelical Christians such as me who like Sarah Palin."

I'm agnostic, and I like Palin.

"The US spends more per capita on its military than on anything else."

Wrong. We spend more on social programs like Social Insecurity, Medicare/Medicaid. Look at the entire budget, not just the "discretionary" budget.