Video: ‘Cuda attack in Hong Kong

posted at 4:15 pm on September 23, 2009 by Allahpundit

For a speech that some on the left stupidly maintained was an elaborate “prank,” it sure does seem to have been treated pretty seriously by those who were there (seriously enough, in fact, to inspire two Palin-haters to walk out in a huff). Alas, the event was closed to the press so this tiny clip of her burnishing her “Main Street” credentials ahead of 2012 is the best I can do, but the Journal got hold of the entire vid somehow and published some of the choicer excerpts. She touches on “death panels,” of course, but for my money this is the most significant bit:

Lack of government wasn’t the problem. Government policies were the problem. The marketplace didn’t fail. It became exactly as common sense would expect it to. The government ordered the loosening of lending standards. The Federal Reserve kept interest rates low. The government forced lending institutions to give loans to people who, as I say, couldn’t afford them. Speculators spotted new investment vehicles, jumped on board and rating agencies underestimated risks…

How can we discuss reform without addressing the government policies at the root of the problems? The root of the collapse? And how can we think that setting up the Fed as the monitor of systemic risk in the financial sector will result in meaningful reform? The words “fox” and “hen house” come to mind. The Fed’s decisions helped create the bubble. Look at the root cause of most asset bubbles, and you’ll see the Fed somewhere in the background.

Ending the Fed is currently job one among the Paulnuts and an occasional hobbyhorse for Glenn Beck. Sounds to me like Palin’s positioning herself as the strong-form libertarian rEVOLution alternative to Mitt and Huck. Are the Paulnuts going to cotton to her reputation for social conservatism, though? Seems like an odd match in style, if not in substance, but not a bad strategy all in all.

Palin-skeptics may, perhaps, enjoy Time’s write-up of the event, featuring snotty asides about her “rattling off financial terms of art” and “rambling” about the ancient land bridge that once joined Asia to Alaska. Exit question: Is Sarahcuda really more “Main Street” than Huck? Dude, the guy used to eat squirrel — that he cooked in a popcorn machine. How much more “authentic” can you get? I ask you.

Update: The phrase of the day is, of course, “common sense.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6

Otherwise, why do we refer to the Jihadis as “Islamic fundamentalists”?

“Fundamentalists” was your term and no-one else’s in regard to this thread..

I argue right back against them, despite not holding any faith, because I respect Christians and Christianity.

Really?
And you think I need clarity?

and your response is to attack me for an ironic phrase (Sweet Evil Jesus…Jesus was a figure that was seen as ultimate good…hence Evil Jesus is a contradiction…are you even getting this, or do you just still see red)

The offensive part to me is that I don’t really think you mean it to be ironic…if you can wrap your pointy head around that.

, when I rarely see you going after LevStrauss or any of the other anti-religion dipsticks.MadisonConservative on September 23, 2009 at 9:41 PM

Oh, I have my own issues with LevStrauss and his ilk.
Just the name makes me buggy.
Levy-Strauss=biggest Leftist fraud on the planet in recent memory

Jenfidel on September 23, 2009 at 9:48 PM

Sven on September 23, 2009 at 9:42 PM

I hope you realize the monitoring crack wasn’t directed at you?

Cindy Munford on September 23, 2009 at 9:49 PM

Don’t waste your time Jen…you made good points about Sarah today… before you got diveted…

CCRWM on September 23, 2009 at 9:46 PM

Erm…okay. Because she totally wasn’t the one to bring up religion.

MadisonConservative on September 23, 2009 at 9:49 PM

Sarah says:
“The government ordered the loosening of lending standards.”

As I understand it, a very liberal, do-gooder Republican named G.W. Bush signed the American Dream Downpayment Initiative in 2003.
http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/programs/home/addi/
Of course the liberal democrats were thrilled.
That started this whole disaster rolling. Like a snowball going down hill. I only hope Sarah will have the courage to do some finger pointing at her own party. The GOP needs to be shamed for their hand in this fiasco. Darvin Dowdy

Darvin Dowdy on September 23, 2009 at 9:50 PM

One of the best speeches I have seen in a long time, hits the nail on the head. I just hope she keeps poking Obama, it really seems to work.

Sven on September 23, 2009 at 9:50 PM

The offensive part to me is that I don’t really think you mean it to be ironic…

Jenfidel on September 23, 2009 at 9:48 PM

Well, ain’t that a shame, since I do. You need to learn that you don’t know what’s in my head, and that I say what I mean. Then again, I’m saying this to someone who just called Esthier a liberal.

MadisonConservative on September 23, 2009 at 9:51 PM

You also fail to realize that it’s blasphemy to you, not to me. You can’t blaspheme what you don’t hold sacred.

MadisonConservative on September 23, 2009 at 9:48 PM

Fine, so how about not saying it to preserve the comity, civilized manners and elevated level of reasoned discourse I’d like to see more of on this site?
I’m frankly sick of the war on Christians here.

Jenfidel on September 23, 2009 at 9:52 PM

Darvin Dowdy on September 23, 2009 at 9:50 PM

She didn’t say “liberals” or Democrats;” she said “the Government.”

Yes, yes, Republicans (and even conservatives) occasionally do bad things.

But the Democrats currently in power have refused to own their part of the events that led up to the current economic situation.

massrighty on September 23, 2009 at 9:53 PM

MC, first rule of holes ….

OK, so are you saying that “fundamentalists”=”nuts?”

Jenfidel on September 23, 2009 at 9:34 PM

Yep. Otherwise, why do we refer to the Jihadis as “Islamic fundamentalists”? Why was Warren Jeffs head of the “Fundamentalist Church of Latter-Day Saints”? Hence, my additional application of the term to atheists who attack believers, just as the mirror image of the nincompoops who scream about “blasphemy”, be it a humorous phrase or a picture of Mohammed. There are posters here who regularly mock the belief of Christianity, blame it for all kinds of things, and insult their members. I argue right back against them, despite not holding any faith, because I respect Christians and Christianity.

…and your response is to attack me for an ironic phrase (Sweet Evil Jesus…Jesus was a figure that was seen as ultimate good…hence Evil Jesus is a contradiction…are you even getting this, or do you just still see red), when I rarely see you going after LevStrauss or any of the other anti-religion dipsticks. Maybe I’m an easier target since I’m not really trying to attack your belief.

MadisonConservative on September 23, 2009 at 9:41 PM

I hate to keep belaboring this, but “fundamentalist” means nothing. Fundamentals of WHAT? For Fundamentalist Muslims, the reference is primarily to such fundamental Muslim values as jihad, dividing up the world in the the realm of Muslims, and the realm of War, sticking to 7th century Arab practices such as the treatment of women, etc. Not exactly the same as fundamentalist Christians.

But you’re using a definition of fundamentalism based on its common misuse by the culture at large.

Not that you’re unique in doing it. I strongly suspect the primary reason Muslim fanatics were called “fundamentalists” was to make a (very strained) comparison to Christian Fundamentalists, even though the two have essentially nothing in common. But to some in academic circles, the Christian Fundamentalists were people who refused to move with the times and clung to superstition, so they thought the term fit Muslim fanatics.

Fundamentalist Mormons were primarily considered fundamentalists because they stuck to the polygamy that was purged from official Mormon doctrine some time ago.

IOW, “you keep using that word [fundamentalist]. I don’t think it means what you seem to think it means.”

ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on September 23, 2009 at 9:55 PM

Fine, so how about not saying it to preserve the comity, civilized manners and elevated level of reasoned discourse I’d like to see more of on this site?

I’m not curbing my remarks on the off-chance it offends someone. If you don’t like what I have to say, don’t read my posts.

I’m frankly sick of the war on Christians here.

Jenfidel on September 23, 2009 at 9:52 PM

Me too. Hence, I don’t take part. Either pay attention to all of my posts on the topic, or don’t pay attention to any of them. Don’t cherry-pick and ignore the rest.

MadisonConservative on September 23, 2009 at 9:56 PM

Sarah says:
“The government ordered the loosening of lending standards.”
As I understand it, a very liberal, do-gooder Republican named G.W. Bush signed the American Dream Downpayment Initiative in 2003.
http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/programs/home/addi/
Of course the liberal democrats were thrilled.
That started this whole disaster rolling. Like a snowball going down hill. I only hope Sarah will have the courage to do some finger pointing at her own party. The GOP needs to be shamed for their hand in this fiasco. Darvin Dowdy

Darvin Dowdy on September 23, 2009 at 9:50 PM

September 2003: The Bush administration recommends creating a new agency to regulate Fannie and Freddie. Committee chairmen in both houses of Congress announce they will draft legislation based on the administration’s proposal.

Sven on September 23, 2009 at 9:57 PM

Sven on September 23, 2009 at 9:57 PM

Moderators: when will this poster be banned?

/extreme sarc

massrighty on September 23, 2009 at 10:00 PM

Palin put some excerpts up on her facebook page.
Should be good for another 5,000 supporters.

lonestar1 on September 23, 2009 at 10:01 PM

I can’t believe we’re really discussing these sorts of semantics. How about we let dictionary.com do the talking?

First one:

fun⋅da⋅men⋅tal⋅ism
  /ˌfʌndəˈmɛntlˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fuhn-duh-men-tl-iz-uhm] Show IPA
Use fundamentalist in a Sentence
See web results for fundamentalist
See images of fundamentalist
–noun
1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.

Now that one doesn’t really work because it doesn’t appear applicable to other religions, but it gets a certain point across: infallibility of holy book. Hence, Muslim fundamentalists follow their book to the letter. How about the next one?

fun·da·men·tal·ism (fŭn’də-měn’tl-ĭz’əm)
n.

1.

A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

Rigid adherence, that’s hitting pretty close to the mark. People like SaintOlaf, as I mentioned earlier, who rant on about the Orthodox Church being the ONE TRUE CHURCH. Does that nail the meaning of fundamentalism for you?

I think you know what I’m talking about, but you, like Jenfidel, are seeing me as some sort of anti-religion nut because I don’t bow down and acquiesce to your demands that I not say things that might offend you. Hence, the beauty of America: no right not to be offended. Yet, you keep overlooking that glaring point: I defend faith on a regular basis, and get long with the vast majority of faithful.

MadisonConservative on September 23, 2009 at 10:03 PM

Previous post was in response to:

ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on September 23, 2009 at 9:55 PM

MadisonConservative on September 23, 2009 at 10:04 PM

Obama wants to be the President of the World and the US will become Europe-West. Sarah Palin wants us to be The United States of America, built on common sense, hard work and freedom.

Sven on September 23, 2009 at 9:26 PM

Ya Baby, Sven is back. What about Upstater?

Wait…how do we know you are the real Sven and not some cheap imitation Sven? I suppose we will just have to listen for some military ops talk. You will have to prove your worth all over again buddy. :)

Geochelone on September 23, 2009 at 10:04 PM

I’m not curbing my remarks on the off-chance it offends someone.

There is no “off chance;” it is a certainty.
You’ve been told by several of us on more than one occasion that we are offended.

Don’t cherry-pick and ignore the rest.

MadisonConservative on September 23, 2009 at 9:56 PM

Thanks for being so considerate! /sarcasm
Actually, I do ignore most of your posts, but….
I still give more consideration and respect to your posted thoughts than you do to my religious feelings and my Faith and the Faith of many others who post here.
It is almost physically painful to me to see the Lord Jesus described in the way you take his name in vain.

Might cheap online forum comments be an example of what Hannah Arendt described as “the banality of evil?”

Jenfidel on September 23, 2009 at 10:07 PM

Jenfidel on September 23, 2009 at 10:07 PM

Yup, an ironic phrase is evil. You pegged it. I got one hoof and one paw.

You don’t give any respect to my thoughts because you deny my stated intentions behind them. If you believed them, you’d know there was nothing to be offended by. Catch-22. The problem is in your head, not mine.

MadisonConservative on September 23, 2009 at 10:10 PM

She is going Libertarian. She is going to draw attention and votes away from a viable conservative Republican candidate. Both will lose, and Obama will reign for the full maximum eight years. Barackus Caesar’s second four years will make his first four years look like a day at the beach. He will have nothing to lose since he’ll be termed out and done as POTUS anyway.

The only chance we will have is if he ends up a lame duck. That is a distinct possibility, and for that I pray, but it is nowhere near written in stone.

If Palin truly feels the way she claims about her country and her countrymen, She. Needs. To. Go. Away. Now.

…and come back in 2016 if she cares to.

SilverStar830 on September 23, 2009 at 10:14 PM

Sarah’s HK speech is actually 100 times better than you could gain from the tweets.

Go to her Facebook and find out for yourselves.

technopeasant on September 23, 2009 at 10:14 PM

Palin’s posted her speech on FB.

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=139069028434

Too much awesome to quote. It’s all golden.

powerpro on September 23, 2009 at 10:14 PM

Rigid adherence, that’s hitting pretty close to the mark. People like SaintOlaf, as I mentioned earlier, who rant on about the Orthodox Church being the ONE TRUE CHURCH. Does that nail the meaning of fundamentalism for you?

No, fundamentalism doesn’t mean “rigid adherence.”
What Saint Olaf is probably talking about is the Apostolic Succession–Different denominations argue whether Jesus did or did not annoint St. Peter as the sole priest when he said “Peter, you are the rock upon which I will build my church.”
Yes, the Greek Orthodox Church thinks it’s the one true church.
So does the Catholic.
So does the Russian Orthodox.
Only Protestants are a bit more forgiving about who can be ordained as priests and who inherited Christ’s blessings to be priests.
We regard the entire body of Christian believers as the One True Church.

I think you know what I’m talking about, but you, like Jenfidel, are seeing me as some sort of anti-religion nut because I don’t bow down and acquiesce to your demands that I not say things that might offend you.

There’s no “might” about it.
You do offend me.

Hence, the beauty of America: no right not to be offended. MadisonConservative on September 23, 2009 at 10:03 PM

We’re not talking about America: we’re talking about HA.

Jenfidel on September 23, 2009 at 10:15 PM

SilverStar830 on September 23, 2009 at 10:14 PM

No. She. Doesn’t.

You think she’s “going Libertarian”. Have you considered the possibility that she’s simply wooing Libertarians to vote for her as a Republican candidate?

That her common sense conservatism can and will create a broad coalition based on shared ideals?

powerpro on September 23, 2009 at 10:17 PM

The problem is in your head, not mine.

MadisonConservative on September 23, 2009 at 10:10 PM

I can’t think clearly when someone’s yelling and cussing at me and taking the name of my God and Savior in vain!

And it’s not just in my head: several other Christians have said they were disturbed by it as well.

Jenfidel on September 23, 2009 at 10:17 PM

We regard the entire body of Christian believers as the One True Church.

Jenfidel on September 23, 2009 at 10:15 PM

And again, you show that you have never read his posts where he always capitalizes Orthodox, but never catholic, lutheran, protestant, etc. He shows open contempt for other faiths.

As for the meaning of fundamentalism, if the dictionary isn’t the authority, exactly what is?

MadisonConservative on September 23, 2009 at 10:18 PM

I can’t think clearly when someone’s yelling and cussing at me and taking the name of my God and Savior in vain!

Jenfidel on September 23, 2009 at 10:17 PM

How does one yell in text, other than using all capital letters? And cussing? I don’t think I did that to you until you started falsely accusing me of hating religion.

Either you don’t understand irony, or you’re just too sensitive to continue bothering with. I don’t really care which it is anymore.

MadisonConservative on September 23, 2009 at 10:21 PM

As for the meaning of fundamentalism, if the dictionary isn’t the authority, exactly what is?

MadisonConservative on September 23, 2009 at 10:18 PM

“Bible-believing” is the only definition I’ve ever known for “fundamentalist.”
This has worked to separate the sheep from the goats for almost 2,000 years.
Your faith, your prayer life and the Holy Spirit lead you to the right decisions according to God’s Word.

One of the biggest figures in (Christian history) is Johannes Guttenberg, along with Martin Luther; once people could read and interpret the Bible for themselves, because those men translated it into a common language and made it available by printing, each one of us became our own “priests.”
The Catholic and Orthodox still choose to delegate that role to their clergy.

Jenfidel on September 23, 2009 at 10:26 PM

How does one yell in text, other than using all capital letters?
MadisonConservative on September 23, 2009 at 10:21 PM

That “ironic” phrase you use is the worse kind of yelling and cussing I know.

Were you raised by wolves?

Jenfidel on September 23, 2009 at 10:28 PM

Were you raised by wolves?

Jenfidel on September 23, 2009 at 10:28 PM

Actually…

MadisonConservative on September 23, 2009 at 10:31 PM

If Palin truly feels the way she claims about her country and her countrymen, She. Needs. To. Go. Away. Now.

…and come back in 2016 if she cares to.

SilverStar830 on September 23, 2009 at 10:14 PM

For you, she won’t be ready in 2016 or 2020 ir anytime.

“Barackus Caesar” is going to get his second term if you don’t find someone who can match Palin’s charisma and ability to energize. Simple as that. And that won’t be Romney, or Huckabee, or Newt, or anyone else I can see on the horizon.

ddrintn on September 23, 2009 at 10:35 PM

Hmm, page 6 and people are ranting about religion. I can only assume this is because it’s a Sarah thread.

disa on September 23, 2009 at 10:35 PM

You’ve been told by several of us on more than one occasion that we are offended.

Jen, you can choose to take offense, but he can’t “give” it to you and he certainly has no impact on Jesus. Calm down and stop trying to win an argument with this boorish individual.

disa on September 23, 2009 at 10:40 PM

disa on September 23, 2009 at 10:40 PM

If Madison were the only one that said these things you and Jen might have a point. I have to assume that he is being used as a lesson for all those who fall short of certain expectations. Just more “shut up” tactics which I don’t believe is the goal of this or any other blog.

Cindy Munford on September 23, 2009 at 10:44 PM

Hey, I think we ought to investigate or sue the people who took those videos!

PattyJ on September 23, 2009 at 10:52 PM

Just more “shut up” tactics which I don’t believe is the goal of this or any other blog.

Cindy Munford on September 23, 2009 at 10:44 PM

You’re right: Madison isn’t the only one, only the most egregious and offensive.
These aren’t “shut up” tactics–they are civility, respect and consideration tactics.
Isn’t reasoned, civil and at least occasionally polite discourse on the issues not the aim of any serious political blog?

Jenfidel on September 23, 2009 at 10:53 PM

Jenfidel on September 23, 2009 at 10:53 PM

And while I don’t want to take anything away from your obvious distress, I must point out that you have hijacked said serious political blog to discuss your hurt feelings at great (and in my opinion sufficient) length.

Cindy Munford on September 23, 2009 at 10:56 PM

C

indy Munford on September 23, 2009 at 10:56 PM

I’ve never seen a thread on this site that hasn’t been hijacked and taken off topic (most of them several times & at great length), so your scolding is for naught.

Jenfidel on September 23, 2009 at 11:06 PM

Back on topic: Sarah Palin’s posted the entire text of HK speech on her Facebook Notes here:
Thoughts from Hong Kong

Jenfidel on September 23, 2009 at 11:09 PM

Jenfidel on September 23, 2009 at 11:06 PM

You are absolutely right but it seemed the nicest possible way to say let it go. Besides I don’t think Madison is playing anymore. And neither will I.

Cindy Munford on September 23, 2009 at 11:09 PM

Cindy Munford on September 23, 2009 at 10:44 PM

I thought the goal of this post was to consider Sarah Palin’s Hong Kong speech. The comments started off with comments on whether squirrel is tasty or even edible and have devolved into an argument on who is the most offended by the other person’s faith or lack of. I came here tonight looking for pithy commentary on Sarah’s words. I’ve had to pick through six pages to find it.

C’mon, people. There are some really, really, REALLY good commentators on this board. Please get back on topic and talk about the speech.

I’ve read portions of the speech itself. I suggest other Hot Air commentators do the same, it’s very detailed. She really has done her homework on a variety of topics–there’s a lengthy section on China, its place on the financial world stage and what our relationship to it should be. Here is her wrapup, which is my favorite part:

Well, CLSA: My country is definitely at a crossroad. Polling in the U.S. shows a majority of Americans no longer believe that their children will have a better future than they have had…that is a 1st.

When members of America’s greatest generation – the World War II generation – lose their homes and their life savings because their retirement funds were wiped after the financial collapse, people feel a great anger. There is suddenly a growing sentiment to just “throw the bums out” of Washington, D.C. – and by bums they mean the Republicans and the Democrats. Americans are suffering from pay cuts and job losses, and they want to know why their elected leaders are not tightening their belts. It’s not lost on people that Congress voted to exempt themselves from the health care plan they are thrusting on the rest of the nation. There is a growing sense of frustration on Main Street. But even in the midst of crisis and despair, we see signs of hope.

In fact, it’s a sea change in America, I believe. Recently, there have been protests by ordinary Americans who marched on Washington to demand their government stop spending away their future. Large numbers of ordinary, middle-class Democrats, Republicans, and Independents from all over the country marching on Washington?! You know something’s up!

These are the same people who flocked to the town halls this summer to face their elected officials who were home on hiatus from that distant capital and were now confronted with the people they represent. Big town hall meetings – video clips circulating coverage – people watching, feeling not so alone anymore.

The town halls and the Tea Party movement are both part of a growing grassroots consciousness among ordinary Americans who’ve decided that if they want real change, they must take the lead and not wait to be led. Real change – and, you know, you don’t need a title to do it.

The “Tea Party Movement” is aptly named to remind people of the American Revolution – of colonial patriots who shook off the yoke of a distant government and declared their freedom from indifferent – elitist – rulers who limited their progress and showed them no respect. Today, Main Street Americans see Washington in similar terms.

When my country again achieves financial stability and economic growth – when we roar back to life as we shall do – it will be thanks in large part to the hard work and common sense of these ordinary Americans who are demanding that government spend less and tax less and allow the private sector to grow and prosper.

We’re not interested in government fixes; we’re interested in freedom! Freedom! Our vision is forward looking. People may be frustrated now, but we’re very hopeful too.

And, after all, why shouldn’t we be? We’re Americans. We’re always hopeful.

Thank you for letting me share some of that hope, and a view from Main Street with you. God Bless You.

That last little bit was very Reganesque.

P.S. (Cindy, I’m not taking issue with anything you’ve said. I just used your comment as a springboard.)

theotherone on September 23, 2009 at 11:12 PM

theotherone on September 23, 2009 at 11:12 PM

Don’t worry, you are fine. I think this speech was a good start. As I noted in an earlier comment, my gut instinct tells me she is the real deal and I am impressed with her political acumen. All in all I think this slower process of getting to know her instead of the heat of a campaign is going to serve her well.

Cindy Munford on September 23, 2009 at 11:17 PM

Cindy Munford on September 23, 2009 at 11:17 PM

I wholeheartedly agree. I trust Sarah’s instincts as to when to strike and when to stay silent–they appear to be extremely good. Must be the huntress in her.

theotherone on September 23, 2009 at 11:33 PM

theotherone on September 23, 2009 at 11:33 PM

Luckily all that any of us can do is hide and watch. I remain positive.

Cindy Munford on September 23, 2009 at 11:37 PM

She is going Libertarian. She is going to draw attention and votes away from a viable conservative Republican candidate. Both will lose, and Obama will reign for the full maximum eight years. Barackus Caesar’s second four years will make his first four years look like a day at the beach. He will have nothing to lose since he’ll be termed out and done as POTUS anyway.

The only chance we will have is if he ends up a lame duck. That is a distinct possibility, and for that I pray, but it is nowhere near written in stone.

If Palin truly feels the way she claims about her country and her countrymen, She. Needs. To. Go. Away. Now.

…and come back in 2016 if she cares to.

SilverStar830 on September 23, 2009 at 10:14 PM

BLATANTLY WRONG.

SHE’S ALREADY A SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE. THE MOTHER OF RIGHT-WING NUTS? Right?

Drawing the Libertarians like Beck into the GOP once again, will build the new coalition.

She clearly stated it. Republican Party should be REBUILT from the outside.

What school of thought is that? Not Palinist. Reaganist, in fact.

TheAlamos on September 24, 2009 at 12:31 AM

She didn’t say “liberals” or Democrats;” she said “the Government.”

Yes, yes, Republicans (and even conservatives) occasionally do bad things.

But the Democrats currently in power have refused to own their part of the events that led up to the current economic situation.

massrighty on September 23, 2009 at 9:53 PM

It was a solid hit piece to all beltway politicians, R & D.

Sarah is the main street ordinary American like us … with nothing else but common sense, hardwork, resilience, and a heart of full of hopes: The Main Characteristics of the Great American People. She’s reviving and promoting it.

TheAlamos on September 24, 2009 at 12:41 AM

Sounds to me like Palin’s positioning herself as the strong-form libertarian rEVOLution alternative to Mitt and Huck.

As far as I can tell, it is patently impossible to be a Paul-esque libertarian and not be isolationist. Palin has said nothing yet that I’ve seen that suggests that she would end foreign aid or withdraw US troops from their overseas stations.

Indeed, based on the portion of the speech Palin posted on her Facebook account, she appears to see no problem with ‘nation building’, which flies directly in the face of Paul’s platform.

Saying that Palin being critical of the Fed’s monetary misfeasance and malfeasance makes her a Paul-style libertarian is akin to saying that Allahpundit’s criticisms of Glenn Beck means that he shares the same political philosophy as Keith Olbermann.

It’s a non sequitur and an absurd extrapolation from a single data point.

Harpazo on September 24, 2009 at 12:55 AM

It’s passionately interesting for me that the things that I learned in a small town, in a very modest home, are just the things that I believe have won the election.

Margaret Thatcher

Saltysam on September 24, 2009 at 1:17 AM

Seems to me Sarah has given a much better speech than Obama’s UN speech and her timing seems right on. Compare the speeches and decide who represents America better. You go, girl.

Christian Conservative on September 24, 2009 at 1:29 AM

Must be the huntress in her.

theotherone on September 23, 2009 at 11:33 PM

She is showing instinctive wisdom.

That’s something you’re born with.

Saltysam on September 24, 2009 at 1:41 AM

I can’t believe we’re really discussing these sorts of semantics. How about we let dictionary.com do the talking?

First one:

fun⋅da⋅men⋅tal⋅ism
  /ˌfʌndəˈmɛntlˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fuhn-duh-men-tl-iz-uhm] Show IPA
Use fundamentalist in a Sentence
See web results for fundamentalist
See images of fundamentalist
–noun
1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.

Now that one doesn’t really work because it doesn’t appear applicable to other religions, but it gets a certain point across: infallibility of holy book. Hence, Muslim fundamentalists follow their book to the letter. How about the next one?

fun·da·men·tal·ism (fŭn’də-měn’tl-ĭz’əm)
n.

1.

A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

Rigid adherence, that’s hitting pretty close to the mark. People like SaintOlaf, as I mentioned earlier, who rant on about the Orthodox Church being the ONE TRUE CHURCH. Does that nail the meaning of fundamentalism for you?

I think you know what I’m talking about, but you, like Jenfidel, are seeing me as some sort of anti-religion nut because I don’t bow down and acquiesce to your demands that I not say things that might offend you. Hence, the beauty of America: no right not to be offended. Yet, you keep overlooking that glaring point: I defend faith on a regular basis, and get long with the vast majority of faithful.

MadisonConservative on September 23, 2009 at 10:03 PM

Fundamentalism first occurred as a Christian movement around the beginning of the 20th century. It was a response to a movement rather quaintly called “modernism even though it’s now over a hundred years old,” which essentially rejected miracles and the supernatural in favor of a naturalistic approach to Christianity. In a nutshell, modernism suggested that God didn’t really do any miracles, and the writers of the Bible were just superstitious people who didn’t understand that miracles are impossible.

So when Jesus fed the 5000, the modernist would suggest that He probably just shared the little boy’s lunch, then inspired by his generosity, others in the crows shared their lunches until everyone was fed. And Jesus didn’t really calm the stormy sea, He just told it to be still, and suddenly his followers were no longer afraid of the storm.

The problem with this is that some miracles are at the absolute core of the Christian faith. For instance, if Jesus were not really resurrected, if He just fainted and was revived, then Paul said that everything he preached and taught would be just a lie, and it would be better to have no faith than a false faith.

So in a remarkably ecumenical manner, representatives from virtually every Christian denomination met together and asked the question: what doctrines were so fundamental to the Christian faith that they couldn’t be altered and still have a recognizable Christian faith. After these long and involved conferences, a volume of articles was published caled “The Fundamentals of the Christian Faith.”

Obviously, you can’t really condense these volumes to a paragraph or two, but a very brief summary generally boils “fundamental” doctrines down to a) special creation, b) sinful nature of man, c) virgin birth d) death of Christ as a “substitute” or sacrifice e) resurrection f) return of Christ, often called “Second Coming”, and the ever-famous g) belief that the Bible is inspired and without error, often described as being “literally true.”

The really important point here is that Christian fundamentalism had a very well-defined meaning and origin, even a history. Fundamentalist as applied to Muslims is much more of a vague term, though it makes at least some sense in that jihad is as fundamental to the Muslim faith as evangelism is to the Christian faith.

The difference between the two dictonary definitions is obvious. The first refers to the actual movement I described briefly above. The second is more an example of using the first definition loosely as a pejorative.

Of course, if you throw around fundamentalist like the left likes to throw the word “fascist” at conservatives, you just cause confusion. Which is why so many on the left are baffled to hear Obama described as fascist, since they think it’s a synonym for “racist right-wing jack-booted thug.”

I think it’s worth correcting the record on this, since MadCon and others like to throw around the word “fundamentalist” like KosKids throw around the term “fascist.”

But I’ll stop there, because Sarah Palin gave a really great speech in Hong Kong that shows a real grasp of the issues facing this country, and that should be the real topic.

tom on September 24, 2009 at 3:23 AM

Yea Palin!!! :) Wish she was Prez now!!!

dec5 on September 24, 2009 at 9:14 AM

Sarah, sounded like both Ron Reagan and Ron Paul, when she took on the Fed, in Hong Kong yesterday.

“Lack of government wasn’t the problem, government policies were the problem. “

WOW… I’m seeing a real third party alternative here…P&P; Palin and Paul…

Palin drafted Randy Scheunemann, the top foreign-policy adviser to her 2008 running mate, John McCain, to craft the speech.

You go girl…!

Geezer on September 24, 2009 at 9:30 AM

Palin has the right message, but i don’t think she can stand next to Obama and crush him in a debate, enough so that the media can’t ignore it. Her credibility to the average American is too low. We need a new face to lead the charge in 2012.

tflst5 on September 24, 2009 at 9:45 AM

“The government ordered the loosening of lending standards.”
As I understand it, a very liberal, do-gooder Republican named G.W. Bush signed the American Dream Downpayment Initiative in 2003.

The loosening of lending standards was first ordered in 1999, which was signed by then-President Clinton.

In 2005, Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee, joined by John McCain (who was not on the committee, but became very instrumental in the effort) tried to tighten lending standards of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but the effort was filibustered by Democrats.

If McCain had done a better job of explaining this last fall, Sarah Palin would have been Vice President by now.

Palin:

And how can we think that setting up the Fed as the monitor of systemic risk in the financial sector will result in meaningful reform? The words “fox” and “hen house” come to mind. The Fed’s decisions helped create the bubble. Look at the root cause of most asset bubbles, and you’ll see the Fed somewhere in the background.

AllahPundit:

Ending the Fed is currently job one among the Paulnuts and an occasional hobbyhorse for Glenn Beck.

I respectfully disagree with AP’s analysis here. Palin never mentions “ending the Fed” as an institution in its Constitutional role (since 1913) of regulating the money supply by “creating credit” and adjusting the lowest lending rates to banks. She only says that the Fed should not be given ADDITIONAL power “as the monitor of systemic risk”. She therefore should not be lumped in with Ron Paul, who has long advocated the abolition of the Federal Reserve, a position supported by at most 5% of the population. Although she did not state it explicitly, she would probably prefer such power to be vested in an Executive agency such as the Treasury Department, with Congressional oversight and according to Congressional statutes.

In her previous paragraph, Palin said that “The government forced lending institutions to give loans to people who, as I say, couldn’t afford them.”

The “government” here means Congress and the President, which forced lending institutions (including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but also private banks) to give loans to people who couldn’t afford them, starting in 1999. As I wrote above, Senate Republicans tried to repeal this in 2005, but were thwarted by a Democrat filibuster in the Senate.

The Federal Reserve is NOT part of the “government”, but a consortium of private banks to which Congress gave power to “create credit” and regulate the money supply, which it has exercised with varying degrees of responsibility and competence over the years. Many analysts blame the Fed for precipitating the October 1929 stock market crash by suddenly tightening credit, causing massive defaults by investors who had bought stocks on “margin” with borrowed money, and a selling spree. However, the Fed’s policies in the 1980′s brought the rampant inflation of the late 1970′s down to reasonable levels, and maintained relative stability of the economy through the 1990′s.

Ron Paul and his sparse followers might want to abolish the Fed and return the power to create currency to the U. S. Treasury (part of the “government”) as stipulated in the original, unamended Constitution. This would greatly reduce the temptation to deficit spending, but the transition period could lead to a long deflationary spiral, devastating to the economy and the American people.

Sarah Palin is smart enough to realize that the Fed can’t be abolished overnight, but that its power should be decreased, and not increased.

Steve Z on September 24, 2009 at 10:43 AM

“The loosening of lending standards was first ordered in 1999, which was signed by then-President Clinton.” Steve Z on September 24, 2009 at 10:43 AM

Ah… but where and when, were these “affairs of finance” finally consummated?

I might have ventured that the complacency, laisser-faire attitude and yes, perhaps even dereliction of duty may have actually begun, during Hank Paulson’s tenure at Goldman Sachs [1994-98] during Clinton’s administration.

“…In 2004, at the request of the major Wall Street investment houses—including Goldman Sachs, then headed by Paulson—the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission agreed unanimously to release the major investment houses from the net capital rule, the requirement that their brokerages hold reserve capital that limited their leverage and risk exposure.”

“…Creating the collateralized debt obligation (CDO’s) forming the basis of the current crisis was an active part of Goldman Sach’s business during Paulson’s tenure as CEO.”

During Mr. Paulson’s later stint [2006-09] as Geither’s counterpart in the Bush administration…

“… Paulson told bankers that they would be forced to accept government bailout money, whether they wanted it or not. One of the documents, a talking points memo, gave bankers the ultimatum: “If a capital infusion is not appealing, you should be aware that your regulator will require it in any circumstance.”

Geezer on September 24, 2009 at 11:17 AM

Why, oh why, can’t Ed do Sarah stories?

Got a problem?

Allahpundit on September 23, 2009 at 4:19 PM

Yes.

Mcguyver on September 24, 2009 at 11:38 AM

Her credibility to the average American is too low. We need a new face to lead the charge in 2012.

tflst5 on September 24, 2009 at 9:45 AM

Are you an American or a jackass?

Mcguyver on September 24, 2009 at 11:40 AM

Where’s Charlie Gibson now? Wait. Probably searching for his cheater glasses so he can appear half-smart looking down his nose at people.

kens on September 24, 2009 at 11:40 AM

“Sarah’s HK speech is actually 100 times better than you could gain from the tweets. Go to her Facebook and find out for yourselves. technopeasant on September 23, 2009 at 10:14 PM

“powerpro on September 23, 2009 at 10:14 PM

Jenfidel on September 23, 2009 at 11:09 PM

theotherone on September 23, 2009 at 11:12 PM

Sarah, knows how to assemble a “kitchen cabinet” and pick knowledgeable advisors, to gin up her run in 2012…!

Palin drafted Randy Scheunemann, the top foreign-policy adviser to her 2008 running mate, John McCain, to craft the speech.

Geezer on September 24, 2009 at 12:07 PM

***
Sarah Palin looks better all the time to me. Sarah’Cuda for POTUS. John Bolton for VP. Draft Condi Rice for SOS again.
***
Hope and Change for the 2012 election.
***
John Bibb
***

rocketman on September 24, 2009 at 12:10 PM

Distressing to see skepticism about the role of the Fed relegated to the fringe, at least by this pundit? Where’s he been for the last 2 years?

james23 on September 24, 2009 at 1:14 PM

Is Sarahcuda really more “Main Street” than Huck? Dude, the guy used to eat squirrel — that he cooked in a popcorn machine. How much more “authentic” can you get? I ask you.

Y’know, AP, I don’t even like Huckabee, but you’re just being a jerk.

There are actually other people in this country that deserve to breath the oxygen you lay claim to.

spmat on September 24, 2009 at 3:37 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6