A few quick thoughts in response to some (predictable) complaints about my column.
I wrote, “Ron Paul, the libertarian Harold Stassen, is in for another go, presumably on the mistaken assumption that America has turned into Tea Party Nation. (If only!).” I should have been clear that I think he thinks he’s the candidate of the tea parties and he thinks that the electorate — both in the primary and the general — has moved toward him. I don’t think the former is true, and I don’t think the latter is true enough to do him much good.
Indeed, I’ve never thought much of all the talk about how Ron Paul is the “Godfather of the tea parties.” I’ve given major speeches at three tea party rallies (including the Cincinnati Tax Day tea party rally last year which was the biggest audience I’ve ever spoken to), and attended a couple tea party related events in the D.C. as a spectator. I bring that up just to say that I’ve met a lot of tea party folks at the leadership level all the way down. Obviously, Ron Paul has many fans and adherents in those circles. But I never got the sense that, generally speaking, the tea partiers were definitive Ron Paul followers or fans. Among other things, I think the folks I’ve met were generally more in favor of the military, the war on terror, and mainstream conservative foreign policy than anything that could be described as Paul-ism. Moreover, both in e-mail and in person, the enthusiasm for Herman Cain and to a lesser extent Michele Bachmann and, before her, Sarah Palin, was greater than anything I’ve seen for Paul.
Now, yes, my impressions are anecdotal. I didn’t run a scientific poll of tea partiers I’ve met around the country. Nor have I applied a regression analysis to my e-mail. And, yes, I am sure I will hear from many Ron Paul fans and self-described tea partiers who will insist that because they and their friends are Ron Paul supporters that I am wrong (I have ample experience with Paulista e-mail deluges, can’t you tell?).
As for Herman Cain, I’m also catching a lot of grief for not discussing him. For the record, what I’ve seen of Cain I like. I certainly respect the guy, though I was less impressed with what I saw of his debate performance than Frank Luntz’s focus group was. And I am far from convinced he’s the right candidate at the right time.
I didn’t mention him, or Michele Bachmann (who, I’d predict, will do better than Cain in the primaries if she enters the race), because they didn’t fit directly into the thesis of the column, particularly given space constraints. I can tell from the comments and e-mail that Cain’s fans are already trying to make support for him into some kind of litmus test. I’m not buying any of that. But I look forward to seeing how he does in the weeks and months ahead.
the MSM and Dems want to make Ron Paul the face of the Tea Party for a reason, to later this yr, early next yr, finally attach the label of "Racist" not to mention Insane, to the Tea Party. Paul has more than enough political skeletons to do this, all the MSM has to do is give him a small portion of the Sarah Palin criticism to get the point acrross to the public.
also, Paul had 3 different Tea Party candidates run against him last yr
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePart of the confusion might be the assumption that the Tea Party movement is libertarian. It may have some libertarian characteristics, but the two are not one and the same. I just don't picture Tea Partiers getting excited about Ron Paul the way they do Sarah Palin, who is most certainly not a libertarian.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI won't make supporting Cain a litmus test but I like what I see out of him so far. Regardless, I would prefer most of the "second-tier" candidates over Gingrich or Romney right now, both of whom have done a pretty spectacular job of making buffoons of themselves. I don't see why people are so quick to dismiss the candidates who have lower name recognition, I mean, how many people had heard of Hillary Clinton versus how many people had heard of Barack Obama, and yet look where we are today.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have been active in the Tea Party movement locally since it started, and I think Jonah is partially correct.
Although far from a monolithic group; here's my sense of how potential candidates rack up with the Tea Party faithful in my area here in Colorado:
Candidates they would love to support: Palin, Bachmann, Cain, West, and to a lesser degree Paul & Johnson
Candidates they are lukewarm about: Romney, Pawlenty, Santorum
Candidates they hate: Huntsman, Gingrich and Daniels.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLitmus test? No, I think that's just being over-sensitive to reasonable criticism.
As a tea party type from the great state of Texas, I know very few conservatives who would choose Ron Paul over more traditionally conservative candidates like Cain, Bachmann or Palin. This idea that he aligns with the Tea Party is specious at best.
As to frustration in the comments about Cain ... space constraints are reasonable. But the original column specifically stated there was no Southern candidate, as though Cain does not exist. That, sir, was insulting to both Cain and his supporters.
Finally, as a conservative red state voter, I guess I did not understand the thesis of your column. You talked about how moderate RINO candidates are choosing not to run or imploding. You heckled Ron Paul (deservedly so, IMHO). But then you pretty much said the GOP needs some kind of centrist candidate of just the kind most Republican voters do NOT want.
And this: "But it does hint that this year’s primary season won’t involve a replay of the dreadful 2008 debates in which the candidates auditioned to play the part of Ronald Reagan in the school play." Is that just mocking the people like Herman Cain who actually believe in limited government? Or am I just not understanding your sense of humor??
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't know of one Tea Partier that either considers Ron Paul to be a driving force in the movement or plans to vote for the guy.
Palin, Bachmann and Cain have more clout in the TP movement than Ron Paul ever will. However, as JonathanP states, the MSM want to make Paul the face of the movement for a reason.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAll I have to say is that there are some Republicans who are trying to make support for Mitch Daniels and Tim Pawlenty a litmus test. And I find them both oh so boring.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSocial conservatives have co-opted the so-called "tea party" to the point where there is no difference between them and the good ol' GOP of yesteryear. Same crowd new name.
So much for putting social issues on the backburner and fiscal issues front-and-center. At least Paul has brought an influx of new converts into the party. The same cannot be said for the others.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAll the MSM has to do, after getting into the minds of Moderates that Ron Paul is the "Godfather of the Tea Party"
Is to then suddenly look into his past, and finally scrutinize him.
The newsletters and other idiocies roll out, and Tea Party is Nationally branded as Racist and Insane going into 2012 vs. our first Black President.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf I may please;
Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate who would cut enough spending to avert a debt crisis. Only he will restore constitutionally sound money. And, only he will strengthen our national defense by bringing our troops home and putting an end to the nation-building that is draining our country.
Watch Dr Paul question Ben Bernanke if you doubt Paul understands even subtle aspects of the economy. Imagine Palin or Romney doing that?
Other candidates speak flowery words and tell nothing of how anything will get done. Mr. Paul is very different.
Constitutionally, legislatively, and morally, Ron Paul has no equal. His 22 year voting record speaks for itself.
Please help give America back Her Constitution.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRon Paul for President in 2012.
Thank You
Several people in the comments have complained about Mitch Daniels usually in non-specific terms. Daniels may not be a firebrand, but what he has to say is fantastic and his record on social and fiscal issues is very conservative. For example, check out this conversation on Uncommon Knowledge: External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAmong all the many candidates, Mitch Daniels is one of the best.
The way I remember it, the Tea Party was created to help promote Ron Paul and his message. They were for limited government, no illegal wars, sound money, etc. Once it gained notoriety however, others started to come in and take over (Palin), which is about the time the Tea Party lost its way.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Blue Ocean Conservative - "Daniels may not be a firebrand..."
Stop right there. In some circles, that alone is enough to disqualify him. To currently enjoy what can be described as "grassroots" support in the Republican party, you must fit nicely into either one or several of the following categories (in no particular order).
1) You must have quit the only job that remotely qualifies you for the office of presidency.
2) You must have never held any kind of elective office prior to running for president.
3) You must support the legalization of Heroin, and other Schedule III narcotics.
4) You must speak in a manner that can only be interpreted as genuinely contemptuous of the English language.
5) You must never have gone to an Ivy League university, and ABSOLUTELY never have graduated with an advance degree - especially a law degree.
8) You must think "Tom Jones" is a Welsh vocalist and not a literary character from the 16th Century.
and finally...
7) You must be easily relatable to an assortment of ursine woodland creatures.
If you don't satisfy at least one of those requirements, you're an establishment RINO who probably either does live in, or dreams about living in the Beltway or Manhattan.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI disagree with Ron Paul on foreign policy but the domestic crisis is such that I will gladly support him for president. The hysterical bomb throwing on the right these days is really dispiriting.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOkay, folks, time for a reality check.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse1) Ron Paul has no shot to win the nomination. That's good.
2) Herman Cain has no shot to win the nomination. That's bad.
3) Sarah Palin is almost certainly not running. That's bad.
4) Michele Bachmann almost certainly is running. Your call on the whole good/bad thing.
5) The viable candidates likely to run are three: Romney, Daniels and Pawlenty. (And no, I am not a member of the "elite" trying to dictate who is viable. It's just obvious that these three are the only ones who have a shot. Johnson is a pothead goofball, Huntsman worked for Obama, Paul actually did argue to legalize HEROIN, and Rick Santorum got beat in his home state last time by 18 percentage points. Newt didn't shoot himself in the foot last weekend; he shot himself in the head.)
6) Ann Coulter says lots of outrageous things, but her prediction that if we nominate Mitt Romney, we will lose is pretty solid. Nominating the architect of the forerunner of your opponent's despised signature initiative is...well...a little bit nuts. So we're down to the old boring guy and the younger boring guy. Pays your money and takes your chances.
Ron Paul is the father of the modern Tea Party movement. His supporters hosted the first modern tea party and his focus in the 2008 campaign was economics while everyone else was talking about the war. Don't take my word for it go watch a youtube of the tea party and some of the speeches Dr. Paul gave back then.
While I am sure there are some Tea Party groups where there isn't a single Paul supporter I know of several where they make up over half the members.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJonah,
Thanks for replying to the critics out there:). For my part, I am not 100% sold on Herman Cain, but from what I've seen, he's more interesting than most of the current GOP crop. Like you, I am looking forward to seeing how he does in the coming weeks and months.
My response to your column had more to do with the lack of a Cain mention, than a litmus test, or bar, for the other candidates to meet. Not sure I completely buy the, "not fitting into the thesis," explanation... but then again, I did not write the column- so that's as good a reason as any.
I value your insight. At the risk of being accused of being a complete brown-noser, I hold "Liberal Fascism" up, as one of the most brilliant books I've read in a long time.
Keep up the good work!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePaul's one anti-war, anti-govt. rally in 2007 they labeled a boston tea party because in Boston Harbor.....IS NOT the Tea Party that came to be in 2009
It says alot about Paul that he would try to take credit for a leaderless, groundup movement.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe GOP better not write off, or thumb their snotty noses at the candidates the tea party/conservatives support. If they do, it could cause a party split. Don't forget, it was the Tea Party movement that saved the GOP's rearends last November... it wasn't the old guard, party elites.
The sad thing is that we live in an "American Idol" age. If a candidate is boring... lacks charisma... and doesn't have a rock-star or firebrand quality, they won't have much of a chance. Don't misunderstand me. That is not how how I choose a candidate. I choose a candidate based upon where they stand on the issues and their record. I'm just saying it's sadly how too much of the U.S. population votes. And nothing personal against Daniels and Pawlenty... but they're boring... I don't see either of them having a chance against someone like BO.
I supported Romney the last time around, but his steadfast support of an individual healthcare mandate ruins it for me. I absolutely cannot support anyone who is for the individual mandate... it's unconstitutional and flat out wrong IMO. And unfortunately, he has refused to separate himself from Romeny-Care. Big, huge mistake IMB.
Herman Cain is the best choice, so far. He won the S. Carolina debate. You may not like what Luntz's support group said.... but they are American voters.... that's who will be making the decision, yes? I agreed with what Cain said (I agree with him on the issues... love the fact he supports the Fair Tax)... but I also love the fact that he didn't try to squeeze in little political speeches into his answers. He didn't try to quickly get in his talking points, rather than just directly answering the questions. He answered the questions plainly, clearly, simply... and was quick to get to his point.
I could also get behind Michelle Bachman and Ron Paul.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRemember everyone in the media that lied to you.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRemember everyone in the government that lied to you.