Posted on 02/22/2010 6:28:24 PM PST by 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.
I remember 2007 all too well - the Pauletarians aren't going to go away. In fact, they're just getting started.
I have an acquaintance who does, he tried to start a 'Neo-Libertarian' movement (in which I agree a lot with) that is strong defense Libertarians. In turn, he is completely trashed and booted from the Libertarian and Ron Paul movements. (it didn't help that he used to work directly for Paul but quit because he said Paul was anti-Semitic). The Libertarians as a party, nor the Paul people seem to want to compromise on their defense platform, so why should the people of whom this is a top priority issue, compromise for them?
Find examples yourself. I expect basic civility from folks who ask me to do them a favor.
All forms of socialism originated in Britain. The answer is yes they are the same. The only difference between socialism and communism is that the Communists use violence to come to power and force their ideas while the social democrats believe that if they impose controls through a democratic process, it is acceptable.
You are twisting a lot of stuff here - I was not the one to introduce the word "philosophy" into the discussion. Second, you are unwilling to criticize your leaders for supporting Islam and instead you repeat their excuses. Islam is a dangerous ideology and preaches violence.
I am opposed to baby killing and oppose gays imposing their private behavior on the public and am all for wars against those who attack us, but have found that libertarians agree with me on all 3 points when you discuss it with them. For this reason, I am more tolerant of them (like you are tolerant of radical Muslim terrorists when it suits your argument to unquestioningly support your leaders) and I recognize their contribution to free-market ideas.
“It was Paul who organized the first modern Tea Party event, holding one on Dec. 17, 2007, to coincide with the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. Conservative groups have since co-opted the movement, but most political experts point to Paul’s campaign as the genesis for the idea.”
_________
Paul’s event was all about Libertarian’s — and Paul — NOT about Conservative principles. The Tea Party Movement of last your began with an “off the cuff” statement of a financial reporter on CNBC and coincided with the “9/12” Glenn Beck thing and just exploded of their own accord from there.
Insofar as Paul and his “followers” agree with the economic, legal and political issues of the Tea Party movement, I’m glad they have a part with us (Conservatives) in this movement. When it comes to National Security and Foreign Policy, that’s a non-starter and a no-go with the Paulites and the Paulettes.
Shall we agree to work together where we can — or is defeat at the hands of our foreign enemies and the destruction of Israel more important?
Absolute rubbish although the date and event are correct. If wRONg Paul and his Losertarian ideology is the TEA Party platform, no one would have showed up. (well other than a bunch of stoners with pony tails and people who mumble to themselves)
Funny coming from you!
So is this guy or Ron Paul your Tea Party leader?
Some real winners them Paulbots!
Just think they were pushing one of these with a bedpan bong for Governor!
Oh snap!
I think it is a good time to point out that ‘tea party’ type protests have happened every year for as long as I can find news archives. The only difference is that with the new media they get more attention. But, to say Paul (or that other guy) started it is a joke. I found archives of ‘tea party’ tax protests about property taxes in Tennessee in the 90s, a strip club protesting regulations in the 80s using a tea party theme, and all through the late 90s and early 2000s ‘tea party’ protests against all sorts of taxes and regulations.
Then you shouldn't make it such. I say what I mean, I don't speak in code or entendre.
Keep in mind Paul might have been at the original one!
Only if he is as old as Ben Franklin and has a tendency to dress up in Native American garb.
..thinking about it.. Paul would have protested the original Tea Party, after all, tea wasn’t in the Constitution that wasn’t written yet.
Starting with “My friend said...” isn’t a good approach to make me take you seriously.
Really? What's so bad about that? I converse with friends all the time and it's not unusual for me to relate something interesting or relevant that one of them has said.
I don't see what's so strange about it. Do you not have friends?
Those were your words not mine, thus, do you have an issue with taking yourself seriously?
(At least we have friends!)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.