Palin v.s Paul; Rift in the Tea Party

[catman]

Sarah Palin and Ron Paul are two darlings of the Tea Party movement, but their views on military spending could hardly be more different.

Palin, the former Republican vice presidential nominee, invokes the importance of a strong and robust military in speech after speech, while Paul, the libertarian Republican who rocketed to the national scene during the 2008 presidential race, has long argued for drastic cuts in defense spending.

It's a schism that has long existed within the GOP's fold – between hawkish conservatives and spend-weary Republicans – but one which the Tea Party movement's diverse coalition and varied figure heads have specifically laid bare over the past year.

The division is especially apparent this week as Paul, whom many in the Tea Party movement hope mounts another bid for president, is teaming up with Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, a Democrat, to call for substantial cuts in U.S. military spending.

Paul and Frank are calling for the removal of troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as former war zones in Germany, Japan, and South Korea. The two congressmen say if that is done, $1 trillion in U.S. tax-payer money will be saved over the next 10 years.

"I think it is a great idea, because that is what I have been arguing for a long time," Paul told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on The Situation Room Wednesday. "And I'm always looking for an opportunity to bring progressive Democrats together with some conservative libertarian types, because there are places where we can agree. And I think this is a very important place to start."

In the same interview, Paul specifically targeted the war in Afghanistan – widely supported in the Republican Party – saying it "makes no sense whatsoever" and is "not in the interest of our national security."

"Even our CIA now says there are very few if any al Qaeda in Afghanistan," said Paul. "They've chased them all over to Pakistan. Where are you going to chase them to? Take over Pakistan? Then Yemen and then Somalia? We just don't need to be the world's policeman. I think we are digging a hole for ourselves."

But at the same time Paul reiterates his across-the-board fiscal conservatism, Palin is making moves to ensure the Tea Party does not articulate an agenda that includes advocating for military spending cuts, even as the movement's larger agenda is focused on reigning in government spending.

In a speech before a conservative gathering in Virginia late last month, Palin stressed that while the "Obama-Reid-Pelosi spending machine" must be tempered, spending on the military should remain strong.

"We must make sure that we do nothing to undermine the effectiveness of our military. If we lose wars, if we lose the ability to deter adversaries, if we lose the ability to provide security for ourselves and for our allies, we risk losing all that makes America great. That is a price we cannot afford to pay," she said at the event, according to the Washington Post.

In the same speech, Palin took aim at Defense Secretary Robert Gates who has suggested instituting future military cuts.

Palin also took on Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a Republican, challenging his drive to rein in procurement spending and reevaluate the need for certain huge weapons systems.

"Secretary Gates recently spoke about the future of the U.S. Navy. He said we have to ask whether the nation can really afford a Navy that relies on $3 [billion] to $6 billion destroyers, $7 billion submarines and $11 billion carrier…well, my answer is pretty simple: Yes, we can and yes, we do, because we must," she said.

Perhaps the ultimate question is whether Paul and Palin can remain amongst the Tea Party movement's most prominent leaders while articulating such opposite philosophies.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/08/palin-paul-expose-rift-in-tea-party/?fbid=6De5mlik0Uf


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...ul-expose-rift-in-tea-party/?fbid=6De5mlik0Uf

 

[gopher]

Our Founding Fathers said no standing army except during war times. If Republicans had any genuine foundationalist principles they would believe it and demand no less.

 

[talloola]

After watching the presidential campaign last time, the only republican candidate who ever made any
sense was Paul, but he was always 'snickered' at by other republicans, and never advanced very far.

If he comes forward again, maybe he will be the only one who will challenge obama with any success,
but their approach won't be much different.

 

[Avro]

They could cut military spending in half and still be able to defend the US with no trouble at all.

Now, if the US wants to continue their imperialistic ways, cutting spending won't be possible.....and massive debt will continue to build up.

What's even more troubling is cons who want a huge military don't want to pay for it all with higher taxation...I think most cons failed math.:lol:

 

[YukonJack]

talloola:

"After watching the presidential campaign last time, the only republican candidate who ever made any
sense was Paul, but he was always 'snickered' at by other republicans, and never advanced very far.

If he comes forward again, maybe he will be the only one who will challenge obama with any success,
but their approach won't be much different."

Could you enlighten us which Democratic candidate made any sense to you and why?

 

[talloola]

talloola:

"After watching the presidential campaign last time, the only republican candidate who ever made any
sense was Paul, but he was always 'snickered' at by other republicans, and never advanced very far.

If he comes forward again, maybe he will be the only one who will challenge obama with any success,
but their approach won't be much different."

Could you enlighten us which Democratic candidate made any sense to you and why?

I went all through that stuff during the campaign, I was a staunch supporter of obama, and still am.
Paul is a middle of the road republican, and many of his views parralled many of the dems views.

A lot of his views were just plain common sense, same as obama's, with some variations of course.

I'm not going to have any debate about dems and rep., just stating my opinion on Paul, I like him,
and did throughout the campaign, and couldn't figure out why the republican people, (well guess I
wasn't surprised,) why they wouldn't support him, guess he's too far to the center for them.

George Bush dragged that party down the toilet, I did like reagan when he was in power, but didn't
always agree with his decisions.

 

[Machjo]

They could cut military spending in half and still be able to defend the US with no trouble at all.

Now, if the US wants to continue their imperialistic ways, cutting spending won't be possible.....and massive debt will continue to build up.

What's even more troubling is cons who want a huge military don't want to pay for it all with higher taxation...I think most cons failed math.:lol:

B...b... but, what if the US has to defend the world against an extra-terrestrial attack of the third kind? Then what?:lol:

 

[Avro]

B...b... but, what if the US has to defend the world against an extra-terrestrial attack of the third kind? Then what?:lol:

Don't laugh...that's next after the terrorist boogey man goes away.

It keeps the industrial military complex chugging along.:roll:

 

[Machjo]

I wouldn't be too quick to jump onto the Ron Paul bandwagon though:

"Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for that pro-communist philanderer Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day."

"opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be"

 

[Avro]

I wouldn't be too quick to jump onto the Ron Paul bandwagon though:

"Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for that pro-communist philanderer Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day."

"opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be"

Trust me, I'm not. But when it comes to debt, military spending and foreign politics he is bang on.

However like most libertarians he wants to end public education and doesn't believe in public health care...to bad...I kinda like the guy.

Anyone who ruffles the feathers of the establishment is interesting to me.;-)

 

[Machjo]

Trust me, I'm not. But when it comes to debt, military spending and foreign politics he is bang on.

However like most libertarians he wants to end public education and doesn't believe in public health care...to bad...I kinda like the guy.

Anyone who ruffles the feathers of the establishment is interesting to me.;-)

Oh I will certainly agree that I'd have no issue with supporting him on a case by case basis. Then again, anyone who knows me here also knows I'd support even Hitler and Stalin on a case by case basis when they happen to be right on a particular point.

Certainly I agree with some of his views. I will also admire him for his consistency. Sometimes I'll be more attracted to a person I disagree with but who is consistent than one I agree with but who seems to like ot play both sides of the fence.

Ron Paul is an extreme unilateralis, and I think that would be the wrong way to go for the US. That said, he's also an extreme isolationist too, and though I disagree with both unilateralism and isolationism, I'd still say it's preferable and less harmful to be both than to be only one or the other. To be unilateralist yet involved would make the US an imperialist state. So I do admire his consistency at least, and do get the impression that he does sincerely believe what he says and is not just trying to manipulate. I'd rather a person tell me flat out he disagrees with me than that he pretend to agree.

Now this surprised me a little:

YouTube - Ron Paul @ Republican Fox Debate 9-5-07

For an isolationist, he still has respect for international law. He may want to dismantle it, but seems to still respect it as long as it stands. Again, a sing of a man who believes in playing by the rules, thus making him more predictable as a leader and so able to provide more long-term stability.

I certainly could support some of his views.

For all his flaws, I'm really starting to like this guy:

YouTube - Ron Paul debate question BANNED from Fox News

 

[Avro]

The last one is what I posted.

 

[Machjo]

Honestly I knew little of Ron Paul till now. I don't think he'll make it as head of the Republican Party though. He sounds like he's stuck in the traditional Republican Party while the new Republican Party has very much become a militaristic party.

He should run as an independent.
He'd likely get more than a few Democratic votes and even give Obama a run for his money.

You know, if Ron Paul ever made it to run for President under the Republican banner, the Republican Party would quickly become the new left. Many leftists who'd voted for Obama owing to his less militaristic stance on Iraq would likely turn to Ron Paul, leaving many republicans having to turn to Obama as the more militarist of the two.

Certainly having the Republicans and Democrats switch places as the new left and right would through their politics all upside down.

 

[Avro]

Honestly I knew little of Ron Paul till now. I don't think he'll make it as head of the Republican Party though. He sounds like he's stuck in the traditional Republican Party while the new Republican Party has very much become a militaristic party.

He should run as an independent.
He'd likely get more than a few Democratic votes and even give Obama a run for his money.

He won't make it and that is a good thing but I hope some of his ideas get adopted by the Dumbocrats or Republican'ts.

 

[Machjo]

And here you even have leftist supporters of Ron Paul:

YouTube - Ron Paul is Bill Maher's New Hero

He won't make it and that is a good thing but I hope some of his ideas get adopted by the Dumbocrats or Republican'ts.

Strangely enough though, for all of his flaws, he'd probably do a better job than either Obama or McCain.

 

[Avro]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYDt7kC3Z0



Strangely enough though, for all of his flaws, he'd probably do a better job than either Obama or McCain.

I'm so sure about that, but embed some of those ideas in the head Obama may improve his policies.

 

[Machjo]

I'm sure if Ron Paul's views spread among Democrats, the Democratic Party would feel the pressure to either adopt some of his views or many Democrats would vote for him.

Ron Paul takes on Hillary Clinton:

YouTube - Ron Paul Didn't Expect This Response From Hillary Clinton - 4/22/2009

YouTube - Ron Paul on Glenn Beck 2/24/2009

If you ignore the spin in this video and some of Ron Paul's ideas which I do disagree with, he still manages to express some good ideas and shows that he can garner support from across the ideological spectrum.

Amazing man!

 

[petros]

I like tea. A nice darjeerling or good ol' oolong. Iced too sometimes.

 

[gopher]

"here you even have leftist supporters of Ron Paul"

As we have discussed enough times on this forum, Maher is a rightist.

"I think most cons failed math.:lol:"

Cons failed everything. Especially the loyalty test.

 

[Machjo]

I never thought I'd appreciate a speech from a Republican so much:

YouTube - Ron Paul : Life Changing Speech!