Newest target of tea partiers: Er, Ron Paul
posted at 9:49 pm on February 8, 2010 by Allahpundit
I’m officially confused. I thought the tea party was all about small government. Or was WaPo right that no one’s quite sure what the tea party’s all about anymore?
Paul, the Gulf Coast congressman whose 2008 presidential run excited libertarians nationwide, even though he didn’t get much traction overall, is considered by many to be the “father of the Tea Parties.” But he has three opponents in the March Republican primary – more than he has faced in his past six primary campaigns combined…
John Gay, Paul’s third opponent, said he has attended several Tea Parties and related meetings. Both Wall, a machine supervisor, and Graney, a former small-business owner, have helped organize local rallies.
Tea Party associations aside, many of the challengers’ criticisms echo concerns of Paul’s past opponents: that he is too focused on his national ambitions; that his views are too extreme; that he doesn’t support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; that he votes “no” on everything, including federal aid for his district after Hurricane Ike.
“The word I keep hearing is ‘ineffective,’ ” said Gay, a school business administrator. “This district is not really being represented as it could be.”
The only sin Paul’s clearly guilty of in tea-party eyes is earmarking; his foreign policy is obviously a major issue, but unless I missed a memo, there’s no concrete foreign policy (i.e. isolationist vs. interventionist) that’s been settled on by a majority of tea partiers. Palin took a clear stance on national security issues in her speech, but that was the whole point of A.C. Kleinheider’s objection to it — that she was grafting neoconservative Republican ideas on terrorism onto a movement that ultimately has little to do with that. Exit question: If not even Ron Paul’s safe from tea party challenges, who is? Palin, and probably Marco Rubio, and … who else?
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 2 Next »
Good give him and his truther following the boot.
lavell12 on February 8, 2010 at 9:51 PM
Bye Bye lunatics!
daesleeper on February 8, 2010 at 9:52 PM
No truthers, please.
Philly on February 8, 2010 at 9:52 PM
A non-issue posing as an issue.
Next…
Gothguy on February 8, 2010 at 9:56 PM
It isn’t Tea Partiers opposed to Ron Paul — if you draw the Venn Diagram, you see instantly that it is Tea Partiers with Common Sense + Non-Tea Partiers with Common Sense. As nearly all Tea Partiers have Common Sense, the result is obvious.
unclesmrgol on February 8, 2010 at 9:56 PM
Maybe it has something to do with trutherism, neo nazi, etc,
Terrye on February 8, 2010 at 9:56 PM
I do hope that the GOP will have nothing to do with Ron Paul. He is just too much of a kook.
Voter from WA State on February 8, 2010 at 9:57 PM
He prefers to go by the name Magneto.
BDavis on February 8, 2010 at 9:57 PM
You miss the point. We are tired of our elected officials not getting the job done that they were elected to do. If that district feels that Ron Paul is not representing them, they should vote him out!! Tea Party members are not out to “get” any politician per se, they want to vote into office someone who will represent them, and not be enticed over to the “dark side” of politics.
catlady on February 8, 2010 at 9:58 PM
I’m pretty sure that this has something to do with Paul being a Truther. They don’t want him acting as the profile for the Tea Party.
Sydney Carton on February 8, 2010 at 9:58 PM
I live in Houston and take it from me…Ron Paul’s an IDIOT…
Ltlgeneral64 on February 8, 2010 at 9:58 PM
Nobody is safe.
Period. The. End.
Knucklehead on February 8, 2010 at 10:01 PM
Eh, leave Ron Paul alone… I still liked him defending the pro-life position while he was on The View…
ninjapirate on February 8, 2010 at 10:01 PM
In spite of all of the attempts by the left (especially), apparently the Tea Party folks are trying to keep the distance between themselves and moonbats, whether Birfers or Troofers, as well as anti-Semites, assorted racists, or even extreme homophobes.
notropis on February 8, 2010 at 10:01 PM
Seriously Allah, I’ve been to D.C. twice and I went to Massachusetts, and the vast majority of the people I’ve met at the big tea parties want nothing to do with this loon. (And this is from someone who basically treats the Austrian School of Economics as the end all-be all).
The TP can be about small government without supporting a legitimate crank with serious Truther street cred.
What are you confused about?
russcote on February 8, 2010 at 10:02 PM
It’s about good governance. It’s about voters doing their civic duty, and educating themselves. It’s not about party, barely about ideology, and all about competent representation. If your guy doesn’t measure up, it’s time for change. Throw’m all out.
Skandia Recluse on February 8, 2010 at 10:03 PM
I agree with the above comments that he’s a nut.
He’s got squirrels in his head that are juggling chainsaws.
tru2tx on February 8, 2010 at 10:03 PM
Well, seeing as he votes no on every spending and tax bill that comes across his desk, idk why anyone would want to throw him out, minus his comments
blatantblue on February 8, 2010 at 10:03 PM
Oh, thank God. The head Ronulan is being challenged.
Finally, the RevoLution consumes its own.
victor82 on February 8, 2010 at 10:03 PM
How is this being posed as the Tea Party going after Ron Paul? All I see is a politician claiming to have gone to Tea Parties (in a way to gain credibility) wanting to oppose Ron Paul.
Don’t forget, the Democrat brand is currently dead. They’re trying to get Democrats elected a Republicans. And David Plouffe, who has been brought back on to run all of the Democrat campaigns this year, has gone on record to state, “We need to infiltrate their camp and shine some light over their side of the fence.”
That said, Ron Paul is a nut.
Enoxo on February 8, 2010 at 10:03 PM
you’re safe AP. er…..maybe not.
ted c on February 8, 2010 at 10:04 PM
As long as we don\’t lose the vote, I don\’t think it matters.Dr. No was a joke anyway, so who cares?
jimmy the notable on February 8, 2010 at 10:04 PM
and im totally wrong about that!
blatantblue on February 8, 2010 at 10:04 PM
whatever
better to distance right?
i havent been comfy with Paul since he told me Iran wasn’t a threat
blatantblue on February 8, 2010 at 10:05 PM
It is really annoying when allahpundit constantly makes the misinformed statement that Dr. Paul is an isolationist when he is clearly a non-interventionist. BIG difference.
RightXBrigade on February 8, 2010 at 10:06 PM
There is no “the tea party”, there are a bunch of them, and the one(s) in question seems to think that Ron Paul doesn’t represent their ideals.
FloatingRock on February 8, 2010 at 10:06 PM
Keep trying to define the Tea Party movement. (hint: Guns and Bibles are not considered a limitation)
Rovin on February 8, 2010 at 10:06 PM
its all word games
whatever the word, The Paul is wrong. we can’t make nice with everyone through trade
blatantblue on February 8, 2010 at 10:07 PM
Michelle Bachmann
Santorum 2012
Colorado Anne on February 8, 2010 at 10:07 PM
Heartache: Allahpundit Doesn’t Understand the Tea Party Movement
Despite his constant railing against so-called ‘Birthers’ in the conservative movement, Hot Air’s Allahpundit admitted today that he was “officially confused” by some members of the Tea Party Movement having reservations about Ron Paul and other so-called ‘Truthers’. Michelle Malkin could not be reached for comment.
Knott Buyinit on February 8, 2010 at 10:07 PM
So sad! I think Ron Paul could have been such a great voice for the republican party if he weren’t so effing looney tunes. He kind of reminds me of the Dustin Hoffman character in (movie name escapes me) or even Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump. He comes up with some very precient points, but then does really goofy chit that totally blows his credibility.
Chewy the Lab on February 8, 2010 at 10:09 PM
Ex-congressman to be: I nominate Ron Paul as the next Fed Chairman.
That ought to make him happy.
Americannodash on February 8, 2010 at 10:09 PM
Hmm. Into how many pieces can we cut a gnat?
unclesmrgol on February 8, 2010 at 10:09 PM
Some people you just can’t reach.
thomasaur on February 8, 2010 at 10:11 PM
He’s driven himself crazy..but not so’s it shows all the time.
Itchee Dryback on February 8, 2010 at 10:14 PM
Tea partier does not equal stupid or kook. The sooner AP and Beinart and the rest figure that out, the less painful life will be for all of them.
TBinSTL on February 8, 2010 at 10:14 PM
This is just plain, loony tunes. No one who knows anything thinks that Paul had anything to do with starting the Tea Party movement – though many Paulites were there from the beginning of this current incarnation. The fact is that the Tea Party group really first started organizing (very loosely) to fight against the Shamnesty – the first major assault by the federal government on America. But that assault pales in comparison to the raping and pillaging of the Constitution that the Indonesian and his useful idiot allies have tried. What they did was so over the top that it forced the organization to be more formalized and people were forced into the streets.
Many tea partiers like Paul’s strict Constitutional ideas for the domestic side, and they like the fact that he understands what our monetary system is headed towards, but no one serious can stomach his insane foreign policy.
But I haven’t heard anything about “Tea Partiers” having any problem with Ron Paul other than the normal complaints people have about Paul.
neurosculptor on February 8, 2010 at 10:16 PM
Or is this part of the “anti-incumbent” vibe?
darii on February 8, 2010 at 10:17 PM
Is there even any official tea party organizational structure? It seems to me to be more an ideological current than an actual organizational one. Can you say this candidate has the “Official Authentic Tea Party Stamp of Approval, accept no imitations”?
darii on February 8, 2010 at 10:19 PM
Bwahahahaha!!! No kidding! Put Allah next to Scarborough and you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference.
Capitalist Infidel on February 8, 2010 at 10:20 PM
Last time I checked Allahpundit, Tea Partiers don’t want to die in a nuclear holocaust because Ron Paul thought ignoring a genocidal Islamic death cult was a good idea.
chicagojedi on February 8, 2010 at 10:20 PM
How much longer will we be cursed with Ron Paul? Why cant he just climb aboard his blimp and fly away?
NickTx on February 8, 2010 at 10:22 PM
Not exactly the best example of his having extreme views.
MB4 on February 8, 2010 at 10:23 PM
Stretching for it, aren’t we AP?
lovingmyUSA on February 8, 2010 at 10:24 PM
Oh is that all? Well then I can’t see what possibly could be the problem with that, it’s not as though his main and only virtue was some sense of fiscal sanity.
Seriously, McCain would be a better Tea party candidate.
On an unrelated note, the only problem with the new heater I had installed is that it only works in the summer.
RINO in Name Only on February 8, 2010 at 10:25 PM
Well… um, there’s always that being crazy as a flippin’ loon thing. But don’t let me interrupt your incorrect narrative.
Allow me to repeat this:
Allahpundit says:
I beg to differ.
This boggles the mind. Allahpundit, do you really equate tea-party folks with Paul? Really?
Some of us are just fxxking fed up with big government by any name.
hillbillyjim on February 8, 2010 at 10:25 PM
Tea Partiers seem to love Rand Paul but are not too fond of Ron Paul.
Daemonocracy on February 8, 2010 at 10:25 PM
I stand in awe of your brilliance. :)
ThePrez on February 8, 2010 at 10:25 PM
I blame Bush
John the Libertarian on February 8, 2010 at 10:27 PM
Yes.
Term Limits!
Knucklehead on February 8, 2010 at 10:30 PM
Because in that case, it doesn’t seem all that weird at all that people would be challenging Ron Paul.
darii on February 8, 2010 at 10:31 PM
What is so insane about Paul’s foreign policy views?? I think the only insane fp views are the ones that think we can win over the hearts and minds of a people still living in the seventh century. Those views that think democracy can be achieved in places like Afghanistan. The views that fighting for these people in these countries is really worth losing the lives of so many Americans. Call me cold hearted but I say F— Em. They don’t want our help, so why should we care? No country’s citizens should be held more important than our own.
RightXBrigade on February 8, 2010 at 10:31 PM
Come on, Allah. QOTD please? It’s almost bedtime.
Lanceman on February 8, 2010 at 10:31 PM
Allahpundit:
Maybe it has something to do with Ron Paul being a fruitcake with extra nuts. He’s an embarrassment to the Republican Party and needs to retire and go back to eating wallpaper paste. Really. I’m convinced he wears a Napoleon hat at night and considers Screwy Squirrel a hero.
And, yes, I was taken aback by Palin’s endorsement of Rand Paul. But, since I was later persuaded that she had good reasons for resigning as governor when I first thought she had frakked up, I’ll withhold judgement on the endorsement until I can look at Rand Paul’s web site. In the end, I think Palin has a lot better political judgment than political junkies give her credit for.
irishspy on February 8, 2010 at 10:31 PM
Yes, you can. Unfortunately, so can anyone else.
That is, of course, part of the appeal. Think of it as a blank screen, on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.
In all seriousness, though, while its true that there isn’t an official organization, you pretty much have to be fiscally conservative in order for the label “Tea partier” to have any validity.
RINO in Name Only on February 8, 2010 at 10:32 PM
The Tea Party movement is suppose to be about bringing more freedom and liberty to America, not trying to export it via some Bridge on the River Kwai to a bunch of troglodyte Muslims.
MB4 on February 8, 2010 at 10:33 PM
So do you think the war on terror is a fiction or something? Or are you merely saying that trying to change other countries is not effective and that we should just kill all the terrorists we can within a certain withdrawal timetable and leave it at that?
darii on February 8, 2010 at 10:33 PM
Memo to Allahpundit: isolationism is far fringe ideology accepted by almost no one on the right since WWII. Ron Paul, who is with Jeremiah Wright in believing that 9/11 was America’s just deserts, is not a conservative at all and he is certainly not a tea party leader. He’s just a fringe dirtbag, like Pat Roberts, who sees every natural disaster as God’s punishment for homosexuality, or some other Old Testament sin.
Robert’s “Christian” God does not believe in the New Testament. Ron Paul’s “libertarianism” does not believe in fighting for liberty. Both have their followers, but only a minor fringe.
Alec on February 8, 2010 at 10:33 PM
Ron Paul is a very strange man with very out-there political views. To be polite, he appears to represent the isolationist fringe of the Republican party. It wouldn’t bother me in the least if he lost his primary. We can do better in terms of people to represent the Republican team.
Jill1066 on February 8, 2010 at 10:33 PM
Yeah, RP sounds like he is really worried about his primary.
JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2010 at 10:34 PM
Sure hope we can add Rick Perry and kay Hutchinson to that list soon. I wish Medina could pull it off.
Vigilante on February 8, 2010 at 10:34 PM
Like I’ve said before, it’s not a movement, it’s a paradigm shift in the consciousness of the American electorate, you know, those for whom voting is a lifestyle and not just American Idol event. That’s why trying to put it in a box won’t work. That’s why it doesn’t need a leader.
The American Revolution wasn’t a 2 hour movie. It took decades to build up from year after year of discontent. It wasn’t about one issue, it was about a lot of issues. It was a general fed-upness. That’s basically what I think is happening at this stage. Grassroots is grassroots.
Texas Gal on February 8, 2010 at 10:36 PM
Ronpaulians are twenty-somethings who used to be brainwashed marxists and anarchists in their teens, went along with the “anti-war” and 9/11 truther hysterias, but then discovered some classical liberal philosophy or Ayn Rand and projected that on an paleoconservative nutcase. They are heading in the right direction, but have no sense of context and perspective.
modifiedcontent on February 8, 2010 at 10:36 PM
At this rate the Tea Party movement will end up looking more like a camel than a horse.
MB4 on February 8, 2010 at 10:37 PM
Exit question:
What can Palin do for you?
hillbillyjim on February 8, 2010 at 10:37 PM
It seems to me that to truly be a “tea party” candidate, there need to be at least two things: 1) you get a massive groundswell of grassroots support from people who were attending the tea parties and 2) Olbermann/Maddow/insert-left-wing-pundit-here makes multiple “teabagger jokes about you” due to said groundswell.
Yeah, the problem with the tea party movement is exactly what you said: blank canvas due to not having any people who are generally accepted as its leaders.
darii on February 8, 2010 at 10:38 PM
Ron Paul is a loon when it comes to foreign policy. Baffles me how he can keep getting reelected.
nickj116 on February 8, 2010 at 10:38 PM
Tempest in a teapot.
While Ron Paul is a fascinating man and the breadth of his knowledge of financal history and theory is impressive, he is outside of mainstream politics by leaps and bounds. His “brand” of libertarianism might have suited a bygone age, total isolationism is simply not practicable in this era.
I good with whatever the voters of his district decide, I would be glad to continue hearing his voice to the matters at hand, I would also be happy to see new blood move into the arena. It is what it is.
Archimedes on February 8, 2010 at 10:42 PM
He seems to think that one can wish away a threat, and he is too isolationist for me to take seriously. He also has some strange ideas about where US interests lie.
Huh? I agree with you. Most conservatives agree with you. The war is not about winning hearts and minds. It’s about security. Anyone who thinks that wars are won by “winning hearts and minds” is a total moron. We are just stuck with the federal government continuing to spout this idiocy, though the fighting is very important. It’s just a shame that they won’t admit that war is about killing and loosen the ROE.
I agree with you. Screw them. But they posed, and continue to pose, a threat and need to be dealt with. I wish we would deal with them correctly, as ruthlessly as war demands … but I guess things are going to be put off until Israel finally hits Iran and the world throws a total (and contrived) sh!tfit, just as it did after the Gaza opperation, but at 100000 times the intensity.
neurosculptor on February 8, 2010 at 10:43 PM
The only good thing about Ron Paul is that he is not Mike Huckabee, or is it that the only good thing about Mike Huckabee is that he’s not Ron Paul … I forget.
doufree on February 8, 2010 at 10:50 PM
Goldwater has many claimants to his legacy, but most lack his rebellious spirit.
No putatively conservative politician today — with the exception [in some areas] of Ron Paul — has the idealism of a Goldwater or brings together idealists like Bozell and Hess. Even the one area where latter-day professional conservatives seem most idealistic, in their support for grandiose schemes of democratization and empire-building abroad, there is a startling contrast. Bozell and Hess, each driven by a vision of a more just America — the one vision radically Catholic, the other radically libertarian — came to oppose the Vietnam War. Late in life, Goldwater described that intervention [Vietnam] as “a useless war,” and Tanenhaus speculates that Goldwater, like his friend Bill Buckley, would sooner or later have opposed Bush’s [ and Obama's] war in Iraq [and Afghanistan]: “Presumably Goldwater would have seen this, but you never know.” The idealism of the Goldwater movement did infect its foreign policy — a look at Conscience of a Conservative will confirm that. But ultimately, the ideals that Goldwater stood for were not nation-building and empire.
Today, nation-building and empire, together with K-Street politics, is about all that animates the Republicans who claim to be following in Goldwater’s footsteps. They’ve lost what the 1960 and 1964 Goldwater movements were really all about, and they won’t rediscover what they’ve lost by furrowing their brows wondering if Goldwaterism was really purely libertarian or fusionist. Goldwater himself was a man of the American West, and his legacy can be claimed by either libertarians or traditionalists — if they can put the principled spirit of the old movement before the emoluments of politics.
MB4 on February 8, 2010 at 10:53 PM
I always thought Ron Paul and Ross Perot were brothers in another life.
Rovin on February 8, 2010 at 10:55 PM
Must be them joooos messin’ up the Tea Party.
/Ron Paul’s newsletter
mankai on February 8, 2010 at 10:57 PM
Bush, Obama and McChrystal all resemble that remark.
MB4 on February 8, 2010 at 10:57 PM
Heh. But I wouldn’t put them all in the same group. Bush and McChrystal go together, but The Precedent is in a league of his own. He is the only one who is actually trying to harm our military as his main goal, as with his intentional dithering about the troop surge to bleed us as much as possible. Bush and McChrystal just carry dangerously silly ideas of limited war and restricting ourselves to rules that no one else ever has, or ever does, hold themselves to. The Precedent is just on the other side.
neurosculptor on February 8, 2010 at 11:03 PM
How timely this post is. I just got into an argument with a liberal and realized, they just don’t get it. He asked me how I liked the super-bowl. I told him I hadn’t watched it. He looked surprised and said “Don’t you like football.” I told him I loved football but didn’t like how the game had become political, banning investment from conservatives… Long story short, he basically told me it was irrelevant, “They could care less how you feel.” He was trying to say that I was irrelevant, insignificant, and stupid. In other words, it is okay for them to tell conservatives to shut up.
They will not be convinced until 100 million of us stand up against them. We can no longer stand in the shadows ignoring what is going on around us. We must stand up for what we believe. I challenge all of you to read the constitution each and every day for 30 days. Start talking about it, start sharing it. Most of all, start defending it. Most of these people have no idea what the constitution says, what it means, or what it means to our freedom.
By the way, the liberal I was arguing with was an attorney. He knows what the constitution says, but has no idea what it really means.
ClanDerson on February 8, 2010 at 11:03 PM
Paul is part of the problem, like ‘conservative’ Pat Buchannan on MSNBC. Other side of the same coin. Needs to go to pasture too. T party= majority center right common sense (so far).
Reality Check on February 8, 2010 at 11:04 PM
Everybody knows that history is on RP’s side… the Muslims started beheading innocents and forcing people under Sharia law because the US occupation was obviously on the horizon some 1400 years in the future.
And the Nazis were genocidal maniacs because of the French occupation of Lorraine.
mankai on February 8, 2010 at 11:04 PM
Hmmmmmm, you don’t say? You do, and you’d have to conclude the barely mentionable—We’re fighting Muslim terrorists? Yikes, back up! We can’t bring religion into it—separation of church and state, all religions are created equal—we start defining the terrorists for their own declared Islamic jihadist holy war on us—they are terrorists, real people, declaring and fighting that war, not mere concepts, terror or terrorism—why, that’s racism, or religionism, or some kind of –ism of the unfairly judgmental sort. And in modern Western culture to be judgmental is judged to be the worst, the most sinful, the most immoral culturally Neanderthal of personal characteristics.
So, we fight in Afghanistan as a battle on the frontline in the War on Terror, or, on an even grander scale, in the Global War on Terror, or GWOT for short, and in refusing to define our enemy we then commit a cardinal error in a nation’s execution of war.
MB4 on February 8, 2010 at 11:11 PM
It is really annoying when people constantly make the misinformed statement that Dr. Paul is a non-interventionist when he is clearly a kook. BIG difference.
He believes, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, that that the terrorists would stop attacking us if we weren’t occupying their countries. This is in spite of the fact that we weren’t occupying anyone on 9/11.
RINO in Name Only on February 8, 2010 at 11:17 PM
Paulbots vs. Tea Partiers = Alien Vs. Predator
I’m guessing the tea Party is gonna knee cap Paul.
portlandon on February 8, 2010 at 11:18 PM
Ron Paul is crazy, an idiot, and a racist.
That is why he is not getting support from the Tea Party.
Mr Purple on February 8, 2010 at 11:20 PM
Do you like to gamble, portlandon?
Gamble money, on the outcome of political contests?
JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2010 at 11:22 PM
Winning hearts and minds is a tactic, not a strategy. It is a means whereby the indigenous population is enticed to assist you in hunting down and slaughtering your enemies. The fact that it can also act to make the AO far more habitable for that indigenous population is a nice side effect…but the main reason for making it so is to make that AO less hospitable for the heirs of the miscreants we have lately dispatched. Message ends.
This idea that we are out to remake these societies because it is some kind of National Mitzvah is pure bunk. This does not mean that there are not people who believe it. Paul is one of them, and he hoists it up as a straw man at every opportunity to argue for his wildly untenable brand of non-interventionism. Some of the more utopian fringes of Neoconservatism also believe it (full disclosure: I am a neo-conservative, but I am not a utopian). Both these groups fundamentally misunderstand the essence of counterinsurgency doctrine.
Noocyte on February 8, 2010 at 11:25 PM
Ten.
No! Wait!
Eight.
Whew- close one.
justltl on February 8, 2010 at 11:27 PM
And Ron Paul is kinda ‘out there’, IYKWIM.
justltl on February 8, 2010 at 11:29 PM
I think a lot of the agitatin’ going around right now is the politics of the twenty-first century beginning to shape itself, mostly by trying to break the stranglehold the ideologies of the twentieth century still have on American politics.
As for Ron Paul—we’re going back to the eighteenth on that one….naah, seriously, like one of y’all put it, a lot of these Ronulans are folks who want to believe in free markets, but still got all their grounding in American history from Zinn.To the perspective of mainstream conservatism, they appear to be yet another wing of the statist Left trying to attack conservatism from within.
Sekhmet on February 8, 2010 at 11:30 PM
An amazing grasp of the concept of simile here. How about trying to export it via the Brooklyn Tunnel to New Jersey?
unclesmrgol on February 8, 2010 at 11:35 PM
Watch this video to understand Ron Paul’s plans for the 2010 election.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlqXq8YxQFQ
Ron Paul has started his “Campaign for Liberty.” He will be using this organization to support “Liberty Republican” candidates around the country.
Be sure you know who your candidates are and what their positions are, particularly on foreign policy.
Ron Paul’s non-interventionist foreign policy goes beyond getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan. He wants to close all of the US military bases around the world.
Ron Paul is also leading the effort to “End the Fed” to close down the Federal Reserve.
Keep a very close eye on the Campaign for Liberty and the candidates who are associated with it!
wren on February 8, 2010 at 11:36 PM
You mean the Pee Party? [where the P stands for Paul, of course].
unclesmrgol on February 8, 2010 at 11:42 PM
Chirp, chirp… Interesting, I was always curious to see what a swarm of locusts looked like. Chirp, chirp…
disillusioned on February 8, 2010 at 11:46 PM
Anyone who has been listening to their constituents and actually represents a majority of voters in their represented area…
BWAHAHAHAHA, that’s like saying “anyone who owns a purple unicorn” isn’t it?
gekkobear on February 8, 2010 at 11:50 PM
OT – but maybe connected to their platform if I am remembering that Ron Paul and gang want to legalize marijuana?
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local-beat/He-Messed-With-the-Wrong-Flight-Attendant–83757722.html
Man ate 2 medical marijuana cookies before his flight and became so unruly the flight was diverted after he was taken down by a flight attendant who has a black belt (or more)
Do we really need more problems for our flight attendants, train security etc to deal with? This ended well because the flight attendant took the time to get training and used it well but it could go horribly wrong.
Still not sure I like the idea of legalizing pot.
journeyintothewhirlwind on February 9, 2010 at 12:02 AM
Well it’s a free country. Just because the challengers call themselves “tea partiers” doesn’t mean they will automatically win.
Paul won his last primary with 71% of the vote.
Somehow I doubt it will be any different this time.
Spathi on February 9, 2010 at 12:03 AM
These tea party impostors don’t know what they want. They have little idea what ails this country. Just look at the outright corruption with AIG, the Fed, the treasury department and Bank of America’s Ken Lewis. What politician has been railing against the finance cabal for years? What politician has been diametrically opposed to the theft that occurs under our welfare state. A large chunk of the federal government’s budget obligations are tied to these mandatory spending outlays. It’s frankly amazing how prescient he’s been to these problems and now these ungrateful boobs are trying to primary him? LOL
Pitchforker on February 9, 2010 at 12:06 AM
Allah, try something else. This is a huge miss, like getting way out in front of a good changeup. Captain Obvious can tell you accepting Ron Paul would be instant death to a movement like the Tea Party.
Meremortal on February 9, 2010 at 12:12 AM
Allahpundit, the Tea Partiers are coming for youuuuuuu!
OhioCoastie on February 9, 2010 at 12:15 AM
Constitutional conservatives like Ron Paul are the only Republicans who can reverse the leviathan government the left has created.
Pitchforker on February 9, 2010 at 12:21 AM
I’m a tea party girl. Ron Paul disturbs me because he is worthless for national security.
You can’t sit down to tea with the jihadis and work it all out with logic. You also can’t sit down for tea and ignore the jihadis and expect them to live and let live.
“I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they’d never expect it.” – Jack Handey
ace tomato on February 9, 2010 at 12:22 AM
Yeah, most of them stomp all over the Constitution. Violate their oath, the bastards.
atheling on February 9, 2010 at 12:24 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »