« Cathy Bailey Says The Country Has Changed | Main | Here's The Mindset We Are Fighting »

February 19, 2013


"But I can assure you that many people who first got on board with the TEA party never did so thinking that they were joining a Ron Paul sponsored movement."

That is not what you originally said. You said that the Paulites were "Johnny come lately" and squatters.

Did it occur to you that these "Paulites" were in position to lead this disenfranchised group because they had been at it since 2007 and naturally were elevated in those circles because of their longevity within the circle.

You said .... disgruntled conservatives started it ... and the Paulites squatted.

That is completely false.

No matter how you wish to spin it.

You know for a fact that some of those behind the scene leaders right at this very moment contributed to the Dec. 2007 fundraiser that started this whole paradigm shift.

You are intentionally rewriting history for your own selfish motives. My guess is that you don't want to see the eventual result which, at this point I would argue is inevitable. A shift in foreign policy within the party. Every neocon in the entire country would have voted for Obama if that shift occurred during the last cycle.

It is the gorilla on the plane and there is no sacrifice too great to ensure victory on this one single point.

The problem is that it is too late. And the internet exists. So it is inevitable.

And it is this policy shift that can save the party. Which is so ironic since party used to mean everything to you.

So you demonize these Paultards by claiming that they are intruding on someone else's turf when the facts are exactly opposite to this.

You think you are speaking to the vast majority of "Tea Party" members, but in fact you are speaking to virtually no one, except the establishment neocons which will be extinct within 10 years.

You didn't like Rand as much as you disliked Grayson and you greatly admired Bunning.

And when Rand begins to push on this issue in the correct direction, you are going to push back and eventually oppose Rand or you are going to have to get on the band wagon.

What is it going to be?

God Bless.

[Marc's reply: I can barely follow this. Are you saying that the TEA party movement was not a grass roots, spontaneous, awakening as it has been described, but rather it was part of the plan of the Ron Paul movement all along? And by the way, what band wagon?]

You are not being accurate and now you are making excuses.

You said .... "First, there was a Tea Party and then Ron Paul came along and his supporters took over the movement"

That is blatantly false and boardering on an out right lie.

Regardless of when some people finally became informed and regardless of their inspiration, the facts are the facts.

Why do you keep using revisionist history.

"Yeah, but it didn't mean anything until Feb. 2009, so the Tea Party really wasn't inspired by Paul's followers."

Do you know how stupid that sounds?

[Marc's Reply: Look, you are entitled to your own views but here are the facts. In my neck of the woods there had always been a very small group of Paul supporters who got no traction. They did dominate some other groups but by and large they were on the outside of mainstream politics. Then after Obama was elected a national TEA party movement began to get some attention. I have no idea who was behind it but a number of recent reports suggest that it was the brainchild of the Koch Brothers going as far back as 20 years or more.

Nevertheless, when the first TEA party groups began to organize in and around Kentucky they attracted a number of disgruntled republicans who were not Paulites. Those people were focused solely on fiscal sanity.

Over time the groups began seeing more and more of their work directed by Paulites, in part due to the timing of the Rand Paul campaign.

As the TEA party groups gathered more people what I observed was a number of folks fading from involvement and the number of Paul supporters remaining becoming the dominant force behind the TEA party.

I've never been a Ron Paul groupie. I liked some of his ideas and disliked others. I've been a big Rand Paul supporter from the beginning, after the time Jim Bunning stepped aside.

And while I no longer participate in any organized political groups, I do so for a reason. I like the independence.

So if you think I'm writing revisionist history, fine. But I can assure you that many people who first got on board with the TEA party never did so thinking that they were joining a Ron Paul sponsored movement.]

"First there was the TEA party which peeled off disgruntled conservatives who were tired of compromise and an ineffective republican caucus in Congress which they saw being as much a part of the problem as the democrats.

Then the TEA party was overrun by Ron Paul supporters and then by remnants of the old John Birch society who were fired up against Obama on more levels than could be spoken in public."

You have this exactly backwards. I have corrected you many times on this.

Dec. 2007 was the first ever mention of the term "Tea Party".

Site for me something prior to this and I will shut up.

Site for me an article in 2008 that mentions the "Tea Party" without associating it with Ron Paul.

The first mention of the Tea Party with it not being associated with Ron Paul was in Feb. 2009. The Santelli Rant.

Just be accurate when you are trying to describe the history of the "Tea Party".

God Bless.
[Marc's Reply: I don't know why you keep trying to make this point. I've never disputed that the Ron Paul group had a TEA party money bomb years before the Santelli Rant, but that was the pivotal moment when the TEA party movement got momentum. Since then, and with a movement gaining steam, the Paul group came along and usurped the energy, co-opted it to their own purpose and at least in my neck of the wood, now pretty much run the danged thing. Sure there are new leaders who aren't Paulites, but the man behind the curtain is.]

Here is the deal.

I am not a Ron Paul freak.

I am an accuracy freak.

Usually I get on here to inform you of your inaccuracies.

And for some reason, you seem to be pretty darn accurate about everything except when it comes to your revisionist history about the "Tea Party".

I have corrected you and corrected you and you continue to state inaccuracies upon inaccuracies.

The fact of the matter is that the seeds of the "Tea Party" were sowed in December 2007. Not before that date. And not after that date.

So when you give chronological explanations about the history of the "Tea Party" and you omit this fact without providing proof, I am going to call you on it.

If you disagree, then show me the money.

God Bless.
[Marc's Reply: I must be missing something. What in this post is innacurate?]

The comments to this entry are closed.

Photo For Facebook

  • Kentucky's #1 Conservative Blog
     photo blogfacebooklogo_zpsd77979be.jpg



Tip Jar

My Twitter Updates

  • What's New?

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Blog powered by Typepad