The Daily Caller

The Daily Caller
Politics

Ron Paul encourages Tea Partiers to challenge the GOP status quo

9:00 AM 09/25/2010
Mike Riggs

Former presidential candidate and Republican Texas Rep. Ron Paul is no stranger to questioning his Party’s commitment to smaller government.

“The test is not in the election,” Paul said Tuesday on FOX Business News. “It’s in how we handle ourselves. I don’t hear enough precise things we would cut. I never hear that the military-industrial complex should be addressed, I never hear that discretionary and non-discretionary funding is all the same thing.”

Paul says he’d like to see those statements coming from Tea Party groups, but hasn’t — yet.

“I’d like to see a consensus that challenges the establishment,” Paul told The Daily Caller. “I want them to challenge foreign policy. I want them to challenge the war on drugs. I want them to challenge non-discretionary spending.”

As of right now, Paul said, there’s no such consensus among the loose federation of Tea Party groups. Paul also warned that while “more of it has to do with what [Tea Parties] stand for than who’s running the show, some people have slipped into the Tea Party who are awfully close to being part of the establishment.”

Paul isn’t the only potential 2012 presidential candidate encouraging the Tea Party to embrace more libertarian principles. Former Republican New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, who is widely expected to declare a presidential run, spoke at the 9/12 rally in Washington, D.C., earlier this month.

“Half of what we spend on law enforcement, the courts and the prisons is drug related. We’re arresting 1.8 million people a year in this country on drug-related crime,” Johnson told the crowd. “I suggest that legalizing marijuana will make this country a better place.”

In a February interview with TheDC, Johnson echoed Paul’s frustrations with non-discretionary spending. Republicans “rail against Obama’s health care plan while accusing the Democrats of wanting to cut Medicare,” he said. “You can’t mask the fact that we are bankrupt. Expenditures have to be cut. As unpopular as this idea might be, the people of this country have never been more aware of spending and the unsustainable level of debt we’re accumulating.”

When asked what impact he’d like to have on the Tea Parties, Paul said simply that he was “just going to keep speaking out on the issues.”

Speaking out, while not quite as high-profile as forming PACs and caucuses, or releasing pledges, seems to be working. At a Tea Party event in June, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin appeared on stage with Paul, where she said she believed that “if somebody’s gonna smoke a joint in their house and not do anybody else any harm,” that person should be left alone.

Tags: Alaska, Gary Johnson, Governor, Internet, Law enforcement, Medicare, New Mexico, Politics, Republican Party, Ron Paul, Sarah Palin, Tea, Tea party, Tea party protests, Texas, Texas, United States, Washington, Washington, United States
← Older Comments
  • BooneCountyGirl

    GIVE ‘EM HELL RON – this “pledge” is a JOKE. They have just poured salt into the gaping wound carved into our nation by the profligate spending and corruption of BOTH PARTIES. The tea party may find the Republicans the lesser of the two evils, but not because it wants to be on their team – it wants to INFILTRATE their filthy cabal and hopefully throw the bums out. And if they think this “pledge” will keep the peasants from storming the castle doors, they better call in reinforcements, because we are through “eating cake.”

  • Pingback: The Truth Or The Fight » Blog Archive » Ron Paul encourages Tea Partiers to challenge the GOP status quo

  • robb32

    Love this Ron Paul guy! Challenge the Repubes? Hell yeah! Big party Repubes like Karl (the Rover) are simply hoping to use the Tea party to re-establish it’s old school big Govt losing positions. They are JUST as much part of the problem as is Obama. End the drug war, audit the Fed, end the political perks and freebies, cut the spending vote buying spending. The Republican promise doesn’t go far enough and cut spending to levels BEFORE Bush “error” days, during which “H” spent like a drunk sailor. Just doesn’t work for me kids.

  • PCnNC

    I’m going to hit some wrong with the following statement but I believe it follows basic human behavior in extremely complex issues. Voters elected Obama because he espoused an empty message of change but it was devoid of what those changes were. He offered not one single specific idea on how to “change Washington” or “fundamentally change America”. I suspect if he had articulated his vision in totality, he would probably have been shot instead of elected. (hopefully the FBI can see the satire in that statement)

    Our electorate is basically ignorant about the minutiae of the issues that effect our nation’s future. That is not to say they are incapable of understanding, they obviously are quite capable. However, politicians take advantage of our population’s ignorance to get elected instead of educating towards being elected. We (notice the inclusion) have chosen to be ignorant because our daily lives are filled to the gills and we chose to spend time with family, career, our personal future, or whatever. We trusted our politicians to manage our futures. Now, we find out they are no different than some of the people on Wall Street whom they criticize, they are greedy. Greedy for our votes so they can keep their jobs and the fringe benefits therefrom.

    Bottom line, we require politicians who have no desire for a perpetual job but rather politicians cognizant of our societal foundations and will adhere to those founding principles. Our founders sacrificed everything for the future of this nation. We need those same types of people today. Those who have made fortunes and those who have no desire for personal wealth. In essence, national missionaries. National missionaries who will persevere against the establishment to re-ensconce our founding principles of small government, low taxes, and individual freedom.

    While I do consider myself a “TEA Partier” I am NOT as some on the Left and Right portray me, a right-wing, racist, nut. I have a PhD in Business Administration and am basically an ordinary guy. However, I abhor the BS I see from Washington, Ron Paul included as I am even seriously doubtful of his intentions (I distrust ALL politicians). Basically, I want the govt out of every aspect of my life except what the Constitution CLEARLY declares the responsibility of the Congress to be. The US government is NOT the world police, purveyors of international freedom, economic development, or even fairness. Stay away from my family, my home, and my freedom and we (the govt and I) can get along quite nicely. Otherwise, history may repeat itself.

    • moneymongol

      Excellent Post.

    • moneymongol

      PCnNC,

      I am a student of history and have a background in Economics. I share almost all the views you stated in your post except for your apprehension about Ron Paul. Over the years I have found him to be consistent and very principled – so if you could please expand on your reservations about him.

      Thanks

      BTW – if you have some time perhaps we could converse via email
      moneymongol@gmail.com

      • PCnNC

        Money, I appreciate your offer to dialogue off DC but I had a bad experience a few years ago with such a side conversation that nearly cost me my college job.

        My concerns with Paul are the same as they are with all politicians right now. While Paul’s voting has for the most part been principled it is his incumbency that concerns me. I would definitely vote for him in a pinch. However, for me to truly trust a politician they MUST support term limits. I would even contemplate paying perpetual retirement for legislators that serve their limits. It might be cheaper for our nation than what we have paid for over the last 150+ years of perpetual incumbency.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Specs-Are-Good/645036873 Specs Are Good

          For the record: Dr. Paul has always supported term limits.
          He has voted for all term limits bills that have come up during his years in congress and in fact he submitted the first modern era term limits bill during his first stint in congress (76-84).

  • libertyatstake

    [Mr. Paul says] “I don’t hear enough precise things we would cut.”

    Yes, that will be the acid test. Unfortunately, still too many drone voters to take that particular test until after the elections. All things in due time.

    http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
    “Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”

    • Swen

      Absolutely. The only thing that we could accomplish at this point by getting into the specifics is to drive anyone away who disagrees with whatever those specifics might be. The “ruling class”, including the establishment Republicans, would like nothing better than for the TEA Party to splinter into a dozen bickering groups and leave them to continue business as usual. We just can’t afford to do that.

      I think it would be a very bad idea for the TEA Party movement to adopt Ron Paul’s agenda or take his advice. I also think it would be a very bad idea to adopt the Republican establishment’s agenda, the social conservatives’ agenda, the birthers or truthers agendas, the oldsters’ agenda, the youngsters’ agenda, or Bozo the Clown’s agenda, but they’ve all tried to convince the TEA Party movement to adopt their agendas.

      The TEA Party movement has proven to be very powerful in this election cycle, *of course* everyone with an agenda wants to jump in front of the movement and steer it their way. Ron Paul is actually kinda late to the party in this and ought to know the TEA Party movement is very leary of being coopted.

      What Ron Paul and all the rest of these folks don’t seem to understand is that the TEA Party movement is like a big ol’ train. They’re welcome to get on board, but if they jump in front of it and try to stop it, try to sidetrack it from our agenda of fiscal responsibility, or try to derail the train into a wreck of bickering splinter groups there’s going to be blood on the tracks and we’ll hardly feel the bump.

      Fiscal responsibility is a really big tent right now, let’s not get sidetracked and divided. We’ll have plenty of time to hammer out the specifics after we have a majority who agree with us in principle. Judging from the Pledge to America’s promise to limit the growth of government — when we can’t afford the government we’ve got now — I’d say we have a way to go to achieve that majority. When we do have that majority they’re going to be telling us how they’re cutting the budget rather than Pledging to tap the brakes a couple times before we hit the wall.

      • libertyatstake

        huh?

        http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
        “Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”

      • BooneCountyGirl

        They don’t even have to say what they will cut – simply promising NO EARMARKS and NO LOBBYING ALLOWED after serving in Congress would go along way…

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Nick-Scipione/1729972564 Nick Scipione

    “At a Tea Party event in June, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin appeared on stage with Paul, where she said she believed that “if somebody’s gonna smoke a joint in their house and not do anybody else any harm,” that person should be left alone.”

    This was on “Freedom Watch”.

  • Swen

    The point you’re missing is that there’s only one issue for the TEA Party: fiscal responsibility. Every single line item of federal spending must be on the table, okay? Beyond that we’re no more interested in being coopted by the Libertarians than we are in being coopted by the social conservatives or the Republican establishment, and all of them have tried.

    The Campaign for Liberty has effected quite a few elections this cycle? Really? *National elections*? Could you name one, ’cause I must have missed it. In fact I’ve never heard of the Campaign for Liberty. Don’t get me wrong, I used to be a card-carrying, pledge-signing Libertarian and I agree with most all of their agenda, but I gave up on them ever accomplishing much of anything long ago.

    • krjohnson

      You can keep saying “Fiscal responsibility,” “Fiscal responsibility,” “Fiscal responsibility,” “Fiscal responsibility,” “Fiscal responsibility” forever but it doesn’t mean anything without specifics.

      It’s like a football coach saying “Our goal is to win,” “Our goal is to win,” “Our goal is to win,” “Our goal is to win,” but not talking about how. Working on the running game? Offensive line? Does the quarterback need some work? Is the defense capitulating? You can’t go out there and just hammer such a nebulous issue and expect a lot to happen.

      For the Tea Partiers everything might be “on the table” but that doesn’t give those in Washington the political capital to go out and initiate meaningful changes. When they look at SS/Medicare the old folks are still going to rise up, and the Tea Party refuses to stand against them. When they look at our horrifically expensive foreign policy the neo-cons are still going to rise up, and the Tea Party refuses to stand against them. When they look at the hundreds of billions we spend on the drug war the social conservatives will still rise up, and the Tea Party refuses to stand against them.

      Ron is just asking them to get specific. Give congress a mandate, give them something they would get behind and fight the special interests that will inevitably defend it. If they don’t then nothing will happen.

      By the way, Ron has been to dozens of Tea Parties. He even gave a speech at the national convention for one of the groups. It’s not like he’s not out there. He’s supporting his son, he’s supporting lots of people. His Liberty PAC is giving money to them and rallying supporters from his presidential campaign to do the same:
      http://www.libertypac.net/html/federal.html

      I don’t know what the hell you want out of the guy. It sounds like you’re just trying to be mad at a guy that has done nothing but carry the torch for what you are espousing.

      • Swen

        [Sigh]
        “You can keep saying “Fiscal responsibility,” “Fiscal responsibility,” “Fiscal responsibility,” “Fiscal responsibility,” “Fiscal responsibility” forever but it doesn’t mean anything without specifics.”

        Yeah, yeah, sure, sure. As I explained in my very first post, the TEA Party doesn’t work that way. We’re never going to agree on the specifics and all the attempt would do is drive away supporters, so there’s no point in trying to do that. So sorry. Thing is, if you agree with the need for fiscal responsibility you’re going to vote for fiscal conservatives. We’ve already coopted you whether you realize it or not. We’re going to have years to argue out the specifics.

        “You can’t go out there and just hammer such a nebulous issue and expect a lot to happen.”

        We can’t? You must have missed that bit about the “Pledge to America”. I grant you it ain’t much and is mostly a sop, but when was the last time the Republican leadership even threw a sop to the Libertarians? And yeah, we’re expecting a lot to happen.

        We expect that the Democrats will be crippled in this election cycle. That probably would have happened anyway, but the TEA Party movement sure helped.

        At least a few of the new Republicans being seated are going to know that they owe their election to the support of the TEA Party because they beat out the Republican establishment candidate with our help. We expect them to remember that.

        We expect that “fiscal responsibility” will become an issue because we’ve been pounding on it (and it already has in the Pledge to America, albeit reluctantly and half-heartedly).

        We expect that a lot of the Republican establishment will resist curbing spending — the Pledge to America says they’ll “put common-sense limits on the growth of government”, meaning, I guess, that we’ll go broke slightly slower than under the Democrats’ rule. Obviously the Republican leadership don’t get it.

        We expect that in the next few election cycles we’ll have to continue to clean house on those congresscritters who don’t get it.

        We expect that eventually Congress will figure out how to be fiscally responsible — we elected them to lead, let them tell us what they’re going to cut, that’s what we pay them for, to hammer out those specifics. They could even consult Ron Paul, but they probably won’t.

        Ron Paul has specific issues. His issues aren’t necessarily our issues. The social conservatives have issues. Their issues aren’t necessarily our issues either. The birthers and the truthers, the oldsters and the youngsters, all have issues. We have only one issue, *fiscal responsibility*. Sorry, we’re not interested in adopting any more issues, this one is fine. You’ll just have to live with that.

        • krjohnson

          Sir, I think you mistake my position. I’m not saying that the Tea Parties are irrelevant or that what they have done is not positive. I’m mostly reacting to the statement in your first post:

          “Ron Paul isn’t nearly the first to try to shape the TEA Party movement more to his liking. He simply doesn’t understand. We’re not going to change to suit him, he’s going to change to suit us.”

          It struck me as extremely belligerent towards one of the greatest patriots and elder statesmen in the country, who is trying to give good advice based on 20+ years in the political scene. And I think it is very good advice for the reasons I’ve mentioned before. If you can’t see that, well, you’re entitled to your opinion but I think it’s wrong.

          It’s also kind of funny to me how you keep mentioning the tea party as “we” as if you can speak for all of them. I happen to be a Tea Partier myself, and I have never tried to speak for the Tea Party as a whole. It seems very foolish.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Specs-Are-Good/645036873 Specs Are Good

      They certainly effected the senate primary in Colorado. Ken Buck was an early adopter of their survey form and they used it in an advertisement that wasn’t an “endorsement” (since they can’t endorse) but it might as well have been.

      Then in NV, many of the people that helped get Angle the win were C4L members –one of the main reasons Angle beat Lowden was because of how Lowden screwed over the Ron Paul supporters in 2008. And KY speaks for itself.

      • Swen

        Ken Buck? Here’s what Ken Buck had to say in an interview with National Review after winning the primary:

        “I think the contrast with Jane [Norton] worked out well given this anti-establishment sentiment that is in Colorado,” said Buck. “A lot of things came together, a lot of support from grassroots organizations, Tea Parties, 9/12s, liberty groups.”
        http://www.nationalreview.com/battle10/243767/exclusive-ken-buck-offers-retrospective-about-his-winning-primary-campaign-michael-s

        I guess the Campaign for Liberty can claim they were one of those “liberty groups”, but who did he specifically give credit to? And you do know that Ken Buck is a pro-war candidate?

        As for Sharron Angle, I can find plenty of news reports citing her as the TEA Party candidate, but not a single one citing her as the Campaign for Liberty candidate. Ron Paul says Sharron Angle is a Ron Paul libertarian, but so far as I know Sharron Angle has never said she’s a Ron Paul libertarian.

        And Rand Paul says he’s a “lifelong Republican”. He feels so strongly about his libertarian roots that he never mentions the word “libertarian” on his campaign web site so far as I can find. Doesn’t mention his dad either. I can find plenty of news reports citing him as the TEA Party candidate, but again, not a single one citing him as the Campaign for Liberty candidate.

        Now I believe in giving credit where credit is due and I’m sure Ken Buck, Sharron Angle, and Rand Paul do to. Lots of people and groups supported them, I’m glad that libertarians and the Campaign for Liberty did too. But I think you exaggerate the influence of the Campaign for Liberty in these elections and I’m certain you haven’t had nearly the influence the TEA Party has.

        • krjohnson

          Ron Paul is not a capital L Libertarian. Not very many people in his movement are either. Yeah, he ran for president once as a Libertarian, but that’s it. They asked him to and he did it to try to bring focus to the issues he cares about.

          Other than that brief run, Ron Paul has been a lifelong Republican, constitutional conservative, as well. Why you try and pigeonhole him into this “libertarian” place is beyond me.

          And just because you can’t find a lot of info of candidates citing Ron Paul backed PACs and advocacy organizations doesn’t mean they didn’t help. Do they cite Romney’s PAC? HuckPAC? Some probably cite SarahPAC just because she’s such a celebrity, but I’m guessing not many. He’s just one guy for heaven’s sake, the tea parties are massive.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Specs-Are-Good/645036873 Specs Are Good

          Well one can’t really be a “Campaign for Liberty candidate” as it is a 501c3 non-profit. They can’t endorse candidates or donate to them. It is an educational organization. But that doesn’t mean that a lot of their members didn’t help on those campaigns I mentioned or that the C4L is pushing the very issues that are making these candidates popular.

    • robb32

      Swen, this Tea Party family are Libertarian, and has no interest in Republican politics outside the introduction of real value issues like ending the drug war, auditing the Fed etc..to the table, at which must be a seat for the Libs. Without REAL reform to the party, we simply won’t support their issues.

  • Swen

    Ron Paul wants the TEA Party movement to challenge the status quo? So he’s been living in a cave somewhere? How many TEA Party-backed candidates have to knock off incumbents and insider candidates before we’re challenging the status quo? Would the Republican leadership have issued the Pledge to America — even if it is very weak TEA — if they hadn’t been feeling challenged?

    Demanding that the TEA Party movement be more specific in our demands is just silly. The TEA Party is a *movement*, not an organized political party. We don’t have a leadership council that could formulate specific demands, we don’t have a card-carrying membership that could vote on a slate of demands, and we don’t want a leadership council or card-carrying members that could be coopted or bought off by the establishment.

    Ron Paul isn’t nearly the first to try to shape the TEA Party movement more to his liking. He simply doesn’t understand. We’re not going to change to suit him, he’s going to change to suit us. We’re Taxed Enough Already! We want a fiscally responsible government, it’s up to him and his buddies in Congress to figure out the details of how to be fiscally responsible. That’s why we elected them and if they’re not up to the challenge we’ll find candidates who are.

    • krjohnson

      The problem is we tell them not to spend, but we also tell them to do all kinds of other things that cost a lot of money. We tell them we want war. We tell them we want drug prohibition. We tell them they can’t touch medicare. We tell them they can’t touch social security. So what are we left with?

      Domestic discretionary spending. Which is not nearly a large enough part of the budget to balance it. He’s asking the American people to help him: challenge politicians on the big issues. He’s been out there beating the drum for about 20 years, he doesn’t need to change.

      • Swen

        Yes, there are plenty of people with issues other than fiscal responsibility who claim to be TEA Partiers, but I suspect their hearts aren’t really in it. War and national security, drug prohibition, the sanctity of Social Security and medicare, abortion, marriage of fanny bandits, and all that are hardly the focus of the TEA Party as I understand it.

        All you really need to know to understand the TEA Party is that “TEA” stands for “Taxed Enough Already”. Everything else is a distraction. Ron Paul wants the TEA Party to change in fundamental ways that would suit him. Every other Congressman in Washington wishes we’d change to suit them too. Sorry, that’s not how it works. We’re not here to change us to suit the politicians, we’re here to change the politicians to suit us. At the very least Congressman Paul needs to figure that out.

        Yeah, he’s been out there beating the drum and he’s accomplished.. What? How many congressional elections has he effected this cycle? Now he wants to tell us what to do? Get out a here.

        • krjohnson

          The point you’re missing is that most of these “distractions,” as you call them, (war, drug prohibition, medicare, social security, foreign aid, federal reserve) COST MONEY. You can’t separate them from fiscal responsibility. If you want to live in a country where we spend 25% of our GDP on this garbage, then we’re going to have to pay for it sooner or later. Dr Paul wants none of this, and he’d like the Tea Party on his side.

          Incidentally, he and his Campaign for Liberty have effected quite a few elections this cycle. And NBC’s Chuck Todd called Ron Paul the “spiritual godfather of the the tea party movement.” Just saying.

          • Swen

            Oops, hit the wrong button somewhere. My comment at 6:35 pm is in response.

          • Swen

            And a parting shot (because I should know better than to argue with a Paul ‘bot):
            “The point you’re missing is that most of these “distractions,” as you call them, (war, drug prohibition, medicare, social security, foreign aid, federal reserve) COST MONEY. You can’t separate them from fiscal responsibility.”

            Gee, you know, I never thought of that. I always thought that war, drug prohibition, medicare, social security, foreign aid, etc., etc., Ad Nauseum, were all funded with money from the magic money tree. Guess I’m just a Democrat at heart, huh?

    • robb32

      Swen, the Tea Party grew OUT of the Ron Paul Liberatrians.

← Older Comments