Skip to comments.Ron Paul Wins Over the Tea Party Movement: Why Incumbents Should Worry
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 initially didn't give this "story" a moment's notice. But after Bathtub Boy spent 10 minutes of tonight's 45 minute broadcast (with commercial breaks) and even invited "expert" opinion from a Politico guest, I felt the need to set the record straight. It is common knowledge that CPAC has become infested with Liberaltarians in recent years. Last week several prominent conservatives (including Mark Levin and Laura Ingraham made that observation last week). Liberaltarians and Conservatives share some common ground (as Conservatives do with all Republicans), but the two political philosophies are diametrically opposed on several key issues, including the right to life, military spending, and drug legalization. In short, liberaltarians have no business at CPAC, just as they have no business on FR, but they show up anyway. I have given up suggesting to liberaltarians that they get their own website, but I fail to see the point in them infecting a conference designed to let Conservatives network with other conservatives. I get the idea that liberaltarians need to go wherever the media will hear them, but the end result with things like CPAC is that Conservatives will eventually fail to justify the expense of attending. Essentially liberaltarian stunts like this will eventually kill CPAC.
That being said, here are the facts on that straw poll: 20% of attendees voted. Ron Paul is famous for his netroots support. It becomes fairly obvious that his supporters orchestrated some sort of twitter campaign to rig the poll. So he became a "Conservative" front-runner in the clown car media, which is even sillier. Even he doesn't pretend to be a Conservative any more. The only time the word appears on his web page is in a press clipping about this poll. He's being coy about running again. If he runs, 100% of the votes he gets will be taken from the Republican challenger. So the net result will be that he helps Barak Obama get re-elected. The stupidity is infuriating.
>> It is common knowledge that CPAC has become infested with Liberaltarians in recent years.
I reckon that explains the Fruit Fly infestation at this year’s CPAC.
The ElRonTologists have always been good at packing polls and campaign events. Unfortunately for them, the electorate hasn’t quite caught up.
Actually no, but that won’t stop the lamestream media from saying it.
The author of the article is on crack.
RP won over Tea Party?
Not this tea partier!
I always said Paul is a closet fascist. He's not much better than Obama IMHO.His policies would be just as totalitarian as Obamas.
Mitt Romney won it last three CPAC's
John McCain did not
John McCain was never a CPAC favorite but he made it to the general not Romney.
Who are they kidding?
Ron Paul is a NUT, no he is a BIG NUT!
Ron Paul has no such thing. please.
Ron Paul wins over the Tea Party movement? That makes as much sense as a football bat!
The HELL he HAS!!!!!
“Ron Paul Wins Over the Tea Party Movement: Why Incumbents Should Worry”
They should worry because Paul and others like him might get 2% in their respective primaries rather than their usual 1%.
How can anybody trust libertarians when their favorite
son loads up legislation that he knows will pass and
gives the pork while giggling I voted against it.?
Shrimp boats Is Acomin
Their Sails are in sight.
Shrimp Boats is acomin
there will be dancing tonight.
** Ron Paul version.
Shrimp Boats is acomin
Their pork is in sight.
Shrimp Boats is acomin
They will be drugged up tonight.
Is he Ron or is he Paul?
Karl Rove made an interesting point on WLS-AM this morning: CPAC should drop its straw poll altogether, when out of 10000 attendees, 2000 vote for Ron Paul and call it a victory.
Losertarians monkey wrenching the process and peeling off a flank of the GOP. Has are wRONg Pauls results any different than the lefts Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader?
He is too old
They shudder in their boots when Sarah Palin is mentioned!
Drug legalization, yes. Check out the Libertarians for Life website at http://www.l4l.org/. I don't think your characterization on military spending is accurate. Libertarians do not oppose wars in self-defense. They just oppose initiating wars.
nutmeg was there and she posted the facts on the voting. Multiple votes are allowed and the students manned the voting table(s). Ron Paul's brats stuffed the ballot boxes. The straw poll is meaningless, except to the media and that's the rub. The vast majority of adults don't bother to vote.
Ron Paul has been pulling this stuff for years, bussing in supporters to vote for him in straw polls. But when the real elections come around, he’s never gotten more than 2 or 3% outside of his home district.
He did not win over the Tea Party movement, BTW. The CPAC oligarchs preferred him. There’s a big difference.
He didn’t win diddly squat. Only about a quarter of the attendees voted in the poll and it was loaded with Paul supporters. The poll means nothing!
I'm not sure I get your point, since John McCain has always been a big tent Republican, rather than a Conservative.
Ron Paul is nuttier than a squirrels breath.
Every person I know in the TEA Party Movement is interested in a strong national defense, fight them there not here. Paul does not seem to support this foreign policy.
The point is that John McCain did not win any CPAC straw poll in the last few years like Romney did, but he made it to the general in 2008, nonetheless.
Part of the ongoing FAILING effort to portray the Tea party Patriots as loons and extremists. Except that the people they are trying to convince...is US. Har! Too many of us know better and they just can’t figure us out period.
Every time they come out swinging, they hit foul balls while we wait for the good pitch and get home runs. As long as that continues, let them just keep swinging away.
Aye am a Tee Party Leader!!!
“Ron Paul is a shitbag assclown that will never get elected president. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.”
I would have used the same exact words to describe obama... And he won.
BTW, I know little about paul, I haven’t followed him at all. However, I don’t dislike him like I do obama or mitt or mccain.
Ron paul is a loon. BUt even loons can be dead on 100% right once in awhile. Deficit spending is loony ron’s one hit wonder.
Or to put it another way...I like what ronpaul says about spending.
I though I heard that 2400 people voted, out of 10,000 attendees. 930 some people do not speak authoritatively for Republicans, Conservatives or Tea Partiers.
I’m a tea party of one.
Come git me libtards.
Following a fool with a fool is not going to make things better.
THIS IS THE KEY POINT.
The Liberal media is VERY consistent. They don't tell a story because it is true (it is usually false). They tell it because the narrative helps them.
Trying to peg the broad Tea Party movement as just one corner of the GOP held by Ron Paul libertarian-types is a way to marginalize both and to deny the broad swath of fiscal conservative voters who have a lot of concern with Obamunism.
” Libertarians do not oppose wars in self-defense. They just oppose initiating wars. “
fact: We didnt initiate 9/11, but Ron Paul and Libertarians still opposed going to Afghanistan.
This may be why 9/11 trutherism is popular with Paul-ites, a way to deflect from the reality that we were attacked.
Check out the Libertarians for Life website at http://www.l4l.org/. “
Fact: There are prolife Democrats too, but that doesnt represent the party ... only the GOP has pro-life planks in the platform.
Starry eyed Ron Paulie worshippers may have corrupted portions of the Tea Party movement, but Paul has won nothing.
In many ways, Paulies running for their own lower offices as they are, remind me a lot of a dog chasing a car. The dog wouldn’t know what to so with it either, should it catch the car.
At least he isn’t Peter Paul, Hillary’s buddy.
The PaulHaters can get quite vulgar & hot under the collar, can't they? I read one comment by a PaulHater over @ biggovernment.com that said if Rep. Paul wins the GOP nomination for Prez, they would vote for Obama "just for spite!".
What is that? A pile of horse turds? Or a gathering of RINOs?
I think that you are exactly right. The Ron Paul people where I live actually believe that Bush engineered the attack on 9/11. They actually believe that they have information most people don’t have. It gives them a sense of importance or superiority. In fact they are a bunch of pitiful nut jobs.
Please don't waste my time trying to defend an idiotic political philosophy that has never appealed to more than 2% of the adult (and I use that term charitably) population. I was aware of all the arguments for and against libertarianism before you even heard the term. I just think these arguments have no place on a Conservative website. We take our cues from Ronald Reagan here, and his presidency was actively opposed to libertarianism.
However, since you brought it up, liberaltarians in general overwhelmingly support a woman's so-called "right" to choose. Paul is not a member, but he has spoken for Liberaltarians For Life. His official positions are that he personally opposes abortion, and he would like to see Roe V Wade overturned. If it goes to the states, and some states legalize abortion, he will presumably support them. That would be consistent with liberaltarian philosophy. His voting record on this issue is all over the place, until you see the libertarian pattern that is clearly more concerned with government spending and restrictions than it is with human life. He did vote against partial birth abortions, and I give him credit for that. He also voted against laws that made it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime, and "no" on parental notification. The National Right To Life Committee gives him a mixed record (56% out of a possible 100%). He says that he believes life begins a conception. Personally, I have an even lower regard for a person who accepts that an individual life exists, and then fails to do everything in his power to protect that helpless life. Or even acts AGAINST it in some circumstances.
The libertarian opposition to wars that are not in "self-defense" is convenient at best. Cowardice is more accurate. For example, libertarians and religious pacifists were the only ones who opposed war with Japan in 1941. The current war has always been one against radical Islam. We were attacked first, and the different theatres are merely small parts of a larger conflict that was expected to continue for, perhaps, generations when it started. Some people chose not to listen when President Bush laid it out in 2001. Now they are engaging in revisionist history.
I missed your point about Drug Legalization.
Mo we don't. Making such a broad condemnation like that is utter nonsense.
But why would McCain win a CPAC straw poll if he never even pretended to be a Conservative the way Romney sometimes does?
Or to put it another way...I like what ronpaul says about spending.
Why bother giving him credit here, when he's hardly the only one making the point?
I was going to say bull$%#@ but thats good right there.