Ron Paul Wins Over the Tea Party Movement: Why Incumbents Should Worry

US News & World Report ^ | February 22, 2010 | Mary Kate Cary

[presidio9]

Over the weekend, Ron Paul won the CPAC straw poll for president. Many pundits immediately dismissed the win, for a lot of reasons. (The Atlantic did a roundup of all the "he's irrelevant" comments.) My take on Ron Paul is this: He says a lot of off-the-wall stuff, but his bottom line is that he's a limited-government libertarian. And he's not Mitt Romney, the establishment GOP choice. I think that's why he won.

Joe Scarborough likes to say that if you look at where Ross Perot did well in 1992, those are the same places that tea party candidates are doing well. That may be, but I think there's some overlap between Ron Paul supporters and the tea partiers, at least some of the younger ones. Ross Perot has a website, PerotCharts, that illustrates the government's fiscal responsibility; but Ron Paul supporters have an interactive site for those who want to meet up at campaign rallies (with over 100,000 people either already members or interested), and according to the timeline posted, it looks like many of them have joined in the last two years.

I came across a bit of a tea party manifesto, if you want to call it that, in Politics Daily on Sunday: "A Grassroots View of the Tea Party," written by Roy Nix, a golf pro in Florida. Here's how he describes the average tea partier:

"They don't dream of power, and they don't dream of telling their neighbors how to worship, how to spend their money, what kind of car to buy, what kind of food to eat and how to save the environment. They expect their neighbors to decide all of those things for their own families.

"They don't want big government, they don't want socialistic policies and they don't want to spend more money for things they don't need. They don't see Washington as Robin Hood, robbing the rich to help the poor, but as the Sheriff of Nottingham--taking their tax money and giving it to big business while we starve.

"They don't want to have to march in the streets, and they don't want to be 'activists' in politics because they have lives to live.

"They don't hate immigrants, but they don't like lawbreakers who come here illegally. They don't mind helping people, but they are out of money and want to help those closest to home first until their bills are paid off ...

"These lawmakers have forgotten what 'representative' means, and they end up in Washington doing what their party tells them to do, rather than what their constituents tell them to do ... And that's what's motivating so many who've joined the Tea Party movement."

Nix hits the nail on the head, in terms of the anti-Nanny State, limited government message of the tea partiers, and how all incumbents, not just Democrats, are at risk: "The Tea Party is sending a genuine grass-roots message to both Democrats and Republicans. And they'd better listen up and learn fast," he concludes. A New York Times/CBS poll from earlier this month supports this: Only 8 percent of respondents think that most incumbent members of Congress deserve to be re-elected; a whopping 81 percent said it's time to "give new people a chance." That's putting it nicely--I think if the election were held today, it would be a tidal wave against incumbents.

[presidio9]

Personally, I’ve had enough of both.

[xdem]

You don't know what you're talking about. Read the book.

“REAGAN, IN HIS OWN HAND, THE WRITINGS OF RONALD REAGAN...” which is available at Amazon.

[Allegra]

Ron Paul and his flaming antiwar spam monkeys can Kiss my Ass!!" -- Jim Robinson, 09/30/07

Here is the link to Post 168 where that great quote originated.

I keep it handy now since we seem to be experiencing yet another influx of PaulCult members.

[mnehring]

I support Ron Paul based on his willingness to “walk the walk” about spending and constitutional issues regardless of the dictates of party leadership.

Does he really walk the walk or does he just talk a lot? He is the leader in Pork Barrel spending among the Texas congressional delegation and constantly gets mentions in the Pig Book. His excuses for this contradict, on one hand saying it is OK he requests Pork because he votes against it (completely ignoring the existence of the impact on baseline budgeting), but on the other hand claiming it is his duty to return the money to his district (ignoring that many requests are for items out of his district such as a reading program in Boston). He regularly misquotes the Constitution in things like requiring the fed gov to be on the Gold standard (the Constitution only limits States to use gold or silver, it doesn't limit the feds to this) or that the only way we can use military force is through a formal declaration of war (Article 1 section 8 actually gives three options for the calling and using of military force, only one of which mentions a formal declaration of war). He as actually waffled on even the declaration of war issue in regards to Afghanistan where he was originally fine with the 'authorization to use force', then damned it for not being formally declared, then supported it again as the 'proper' war on terror.

More than all that though, the fundamental principle of Conservatism in regards to philosophy is that of the free and empowered man who can accomplish anything in spite of what happens in DC- in that he fails. He plays the Libertarian philosophy of the fearful man who, while he preaches against government interventionism(sic) is still always looking for a government solution to the bogeymen of the trilaterals, Bilderbergs, or fed reserves. They just replace the external enemies with internal ones to keep people fearful. His movement (revolution, ha ha) is just making a generation of people in fear- little Alex Jones acolytes.

[Allegra]

Applauding!

[xdem]

Or we could be experiencing an influx of AntiPaulCult members. It all depends on who’s ox is being gored.

The bottom line is: Do Republicans want to win enough in 2010 and 2012 to stop lying about Ron Paul? If the lies continue, libertarian Republicans may stay home again.

So far, based on what I’ve seen in FR today, Obama looks like a two-termer. Either get used to it, or stop offending your allies.

[mnehring]

Do Republicans want to win enough in 2010 and 2012 to stop lying about Ron Paul?

Do Ron Paul's followers desire freedom and liberty enough to stop lying about him (making him out to be a hero and standard he isn't) and looking to him (from the government) to ride in and say "I'm from the government and I'm here to help".

[xdem]

I urge you to review Paul’s voting record. It’s invariably pro-constitution and anti-tax. So, yes, he walks the walk.

He’s not remotely my first choice for President, but as I said in an earlier message. I’m tired of the libertarian bashing that occurs every time Ron Paul’s mentioned in this forum.

From what we’ve seen today, this bashing comes from those who’d know little if anything about Paul or even about Ronald Reagan’s ideology.

Nonetheless even such uninformed people helped create a fractured Republican party. This intraparty intolerance helped Obama and the left win broadly in the 2008 elections.

I’d prefer that not be repeated.

[presidio9]

You don't know what you're talking about. Read the book.

Desperate people cite entire books. Informed people give a specific example, or a quote. If you have a point to make, make it. President Reagan wanted nothing to do with libertarianism.

Let me save you the trouble of posting the quote libertarians always use in this situation. It comes from "Reason" magazine (1975). At that time Reagan was running against a sitting incumbent Republican. The interview was an attempt to appeal to outlying voters who read the top libertarian publication in the nation. And the context is that he was comparing liberals and conservatives of the day to the political parties such as they were immediately following the Revolutionary War. He was definitely NOT saying that libertarianism and conservatism were the same thing in 1975. Countless libertarians that I have come across have been stupid enough to make that mistake, so I'm hoping to save you from the embarrassment. The fact that Ron Paul uses that quote all the time tells me he's either stupid or deceitful. In any case, Reagan never said anything remotely like that again.

In any case, there are good reasons why it's not Barry Goldwater, or Ronald Reagan the 1975 candidate, that Conservatives have elevated to patron saint. We also don't revere Ronald Reagan the Democrat, or Ronald Reagan the Republican governor who signed an abortion bill into law. After his loss, Reagan rethought he own political convictions and reshaped them into a message that produced two landslides. And as president, he governed strictly as a conservative. Where conservative and libertarian ideals are compatible, you could say that he satisfied libertarians. Where they conflicted, he consistently rejected libertarianism.

I'm waiting for that example, but be prepared for several stronger examples in response.

[Allegra]

Or we could be experiencing an influx of AntiPaulCult members.

For this site, it's the other way around. This is not a Ron Paul supporting site. This is a conservative site and the Paulites are infiltrating it.

The bottom line is: Do Republicans want to win enough in 2010 and 2012 to stop lying about Ron Paul? If the lies continue, libertarian Republicans may stay home again.

I honestly don't consider Ron Paul and his acolytes a factor in the upcoming elections. They aren't going to vote for the GOP nominee regardless of who it is.

I'm more interested in keeping people like Romney, Huckabee, Pawlenty, etc. from obtaining the nomination.

The Libertarians are as against us as the Obamans are. I just wish they'd stop tagging onto our ticket and either help the conservative cause or go away.

I don't see them doing any of that, though.

[mnehring]

I urge you to review Paul’s voting record.

Sure, let's take a look why don't we. Votes speak louder than rhetoric. (just a sample)

Ron Paul's 2006 American Conservative Union rating: 76% Lifetime Rating: 82.3%

Ron Paul's Voting Record (ya, ya, I know, there is an excuse for all of these, state's rights are more important than stopping abortion and fixing the border, Ronnie is making a statement, or everyone else was voting against it and he was just playing the game, yadda, yadda, yadda)

Here are some more ‘Conservative(sic)’ votes by Paul:

Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes.

Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research.

Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion.

Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons.

Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime.

Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism.

Voted NO on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror.

Voted NO on allowing vouchers in DC schools.

Voted NO on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy.

Voted NO on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy.

Voted YES on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump.

Voted NO on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects.

Voted NO on reforming the UN by restricting US funding.

Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations.

Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits about obesity against food providers.

Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers

Voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse.

Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1.

Voted NO on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan.

Voted NO on $266 billion Defense Appropriations bill.

Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers.

Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers.

Voted NO on promoting work and marriage among TANF recipients.

Voted NO on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks.

Let's also not forget Paul's Pork Projects (that he voted for before he voted against when he calls them unconstitutional but he is just playing the game when he submits them because everyone else does it.. yadda yadda yadda..)

Paul also supported the NAU superhighway by funding the TransTexas Corridor

[xdem]

Do Ron Paul's followers desire freedom and liberty
The situations aren't parallel. Ron Paul supporters, like me, are willing to support other Republicans. But I see no evidence that FR's Ron Paul bashers return that support when libertarians win a primaries.

On a very basic level, why should we support you, if you won't support us?

[presidio9]

As I find myself addressing this same idiot quote again, which Ron Paul is fond of, I thought I'd give it to you, in it's full context. I suspect that every libertarian on this website has quoted the underlined at some point or another: Source "Inside Ronald Reagan" Reason, 1975.

REASON: Governor Reagan, you have been quoted in the press as saying that you’re doing a lot of speaking now on behalf of the philosophy of conservatism and libertarianism. Is there a difference between the two?

REAGAN: If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.

BTW, I might have a higher regard for libertarians if they were willing to embrace the idea that they were traveling on the same path as conservatives, rather than some higher form of conservatives.

[mnehring]

But I see no evidence that FR's Ron Paul bashers return that support when libertarians win a primaries.

So what Conservative values should I set aside to support a Libertarian candidate? Should I give up being pro life? How about should I give my my belief in a strong military defense? Will a Libertarian candidate extend the same olive branch and give up some of his values in order to win Conservative voters?

[mnehring]

Thank you for posting the full quote. Note the difference between the first case of “libertarian” (small l) and Libertarian (capital referencing the party). Even Reagan understood the difference.

Buckley was known to say (paraphrased) ‘there is very little libertarian about the Libertarian party’.

[xdem]

Reagan’s book offers countless examples. Picking one from some many would do Reagan a disservice.

And you’re largely wrong. I don’t care if we agree on how many angels can stand on the head of a pin. I have no need to convert you to my beliefs...except:

I’m “desperate” for only two things. I want party unity going into 2010. And I want my part of the Republican party to get the respect it deserves.

If we take today’s discussions on FR, party unity looks unlikely. Eight years of Obama seems rather more probable.

[presidio9]

Reagan’s book offers countless examples. Picking one from some many would do Reagan a disservice.

Humor me. Let's have just one example.

This is me now calling you a liar.

[presidio9]

What’s your point?

[mnehring]

Exactly what I said, thanks for posting the full thing. Often Libertarian party pimpers post just the first part of that quote but they never post the rest of it which changes the entire meaning of what they want Reagan to be saying.

[xdem]

There’s a lot of crossover. Many libertarians favor the war and a strong defense. In my precinct, the majority of Republicans and libertarians favor Life.

Winning elections in this country is about energizing the base, and building coalitions.

It could be surprisingly hard to build a coalition, if you hate some of your potential allies more than you dislike the political opposition.