Saturday, January 21, 2012

Gingrich Success Means Tea Party Surrender


Almost nothing about this campaign season has puzzled me more than the Tea Party's refusal to endorse Ron Paul. Tea Partiers say their top priority is cutting spending, and yet when a candidate comes along who has laid out a line-by-line plan to cut spending dramatically, they reject him and choose instead an unethical cheat who speaks well. It's puzzling.

The rise of the Tea Party was fronted by men like Jim DeMint and Rand Paul—men who endorse the idea of cutting overseas military spending—but now something has changed. I don't see why that is.

I'm hoping for a third wave, after the Tea Party and OWS, that will finally get it right and focus solely on eliminating crony capitalism in all areas. That idea should be winning. Why isn't it?
Posted by at 12:16 PM

1 comments:

Jeff Swift said...

I agree--that idea should be winning. And I'm baffled that Gingrich (of all people) seems to be benefiting more than Paul from the Tea Party base.

I wonder if it has something to do with the belief that some have that financial success is tied to morality, intelligence, or work ethic. In other words, if you are rich, it's because you are better, smarter, and harder-working than your peers. Therefore, why shouldn't you be allowed to have a bigger say in the government?

Maybe this is the reason why some conservatives and Tea Partiers, are okay with what you, Ron Paul, and I would call "crony capitalism." For them, that's just smart governing.

2:45 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)