I love Ron Paul immensely with one exception: I vehemently disagree with his foreign policy. A nation alone in a world of enemies is a nation that does not last long. It’s part of a strategy in protecting American citizens. Big difference from “nation building,” a broad, sweeping term tossed at anyone who dares look to protect America from outside her borders – that and “neoconservatism” which just, ugh, gag me.
The only sin Paul’s clearly guilty of in tea-party eyes is earmarking; his foreign policy is obviously a major issue, but unless I missed a memo, there’s no concrete foreign policy (i.e. isolationist vs. interventionist) that’s been settled on by a majority of tea partiers.
I don’t speak for all tea partiers, but having been involved in politics most of my life, this movement for a year, and having met thousands of tea partiers, I’ve yet to met one who thinks that eradicating terrorism, beyond our borders if need be, isn’t a good idea. There isn’t a concrete policy on anything but limited government power, low taxes, and devotion to the American government’s first (and only, really) priority which is protecting its people.
Citing A.C. Kleinheider’s hatchet job? Really? It’s not “neoconservative” to say that terrorists responsible for murdering Americans should be destroyed (I covered the speech for PJTV, listened and Tweeted Palin’s speech). It’s not “neoconservative” to point out that Obama & Co. rushed to inform the panty bomber of his Miranda Rights after questioning him for only 50 minutes and not getting all the answers before giving him rights he neither deserved nor respected – and to say that such a thing shouldn’t happen again.
These things are apparently big enough to sensationalize a story that there’s some sort of rift in the tea party, or between the tea party and Ron Paul supporters, all playing right into the DSCC’s hands.
Don’t buy it.
No one is safe – nor should be – from voter-vetting and the process shouldn’t be blown up into something more dramatic than it is.