Well, I guess what I mean is she going to listen to the
social conservative “drugs are bad” argument, or is she going to listen to the tea party “limited constitutional government” argument.
It is easy to argue that you’re both a tea party conservative and a social conservative. But only if you take the tea party position. You say, the Federal Government shouldn’t be involved, but I’d vote to keep marijuana illegal, and I think that most states should keep it illegal. If I was Governor, I’d keep it illegal. But, the Federal Government should be out of this. I’m voting to limit the power of the federal government, voting to make the federal government smaller. All standard conservative positions.
Not the Irving Kristol doesn’t like McGovern’s foreign policy, so his ideas get called conservative by a socialist
positions. Limited Constitutional Government is the True Conservative wing of the Republican Party.
I've been part of the movement from the beginning, and there weren't any libertarians making up rules. It has always been a grass roots movement involving all kinds of conservatives, but especially those of us who are across the board conservatives, and not, shall I say, "limited" conservatives as you are.
I still want an answer to the question as to whether or not you have been paid to post these robotic responses, expressing an incomplete and inaccurate view of what the Tea Party is all about.
Ron Paul is far too liberal to be the face of the Tea Party movement. And this bill proves it in spades.