According to http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/16/th...-party-caucus/

Interesting decision, although not really surprising.

Ron Paul is a hipster politician. He only liked the Tea Party before it got popular

The tea party really eclipses a lot of his rhetoric....which is pretty sad because he was saying some good things that are a bit drowned out now.

I mean I don't always agree with the guy, but at least I respect the fact that he appears to be principled.

FYMetaphor

ron paul is so awesome

Smart man. Seriously, what sane politician would want to be attached to that crazy group?

rand paul apparently, which does make me start to question his sanity. they basically got him elected though, so i guess he has to cater to the base. they aren't smart enough to realize the implications anyway. probably a good career move but makes me lose respect for rand.

This is pretty much vintage Ron Paul, but I don't quite get it. He's still going to vote against things the Tea Party caucus supports that he doesn't, in much the same way that he's voted against Republicans on a host of issues. Therefore I think he could be a part of it without having to support parts of its agenda that he doesn't care for.

I guess that's standard for libertarians: he won't join any group that would have him for a member.

I am amused that the founder of the Tea Party won't even join what it has become.

Better the devil you know than the devil you dont.

He's established himself pretty good cache. He has unquestioned conservative bonafides -- no one really questions his commitment to the cause, but also, he's successfully positioned himself outside of the GOP mainstream of elites. If the concern is that the Tea Party (just as a brand) has been co-opted by those interests, he doesn't want to sully his own image with it.

Basically, he's powerful and notable enough that he doesn't need the Tea Party Caucus label for fund raising and his constituents aren't confused about who he is. If Random Tea Party Sympathetico Congressman Muppet doesn't join the caucus, it might cost him $$ or cache in the movement or in their district. Paul doesn't have any of that risk, and the Tea Party caucus has a non-zero chance of either becoming another arm of the Rove machine, or just doing something ******* crazy. That's where the risk is for him, imo.

So as far as the strategery goes, I think just the opposite of you: he can pursue all the common causes with the caucus at his own discretion, and the caucus will welcome him because of his cache, but he doesn't have to get caught in the backwash when the Tea Party Caucus endorses a plan to invade Iran or deport 10 million undocumented immigrants or make Sept 11th America's Official Protest a Local Mosque Day.

And he only won because having a famous daddy helps and he ran in a red state that basically made him a shoo-in. Despite the way everyone is acting like the Tea Party helped Republicans, something like only 30% of them actually won their elections.

Rand's probably just an empty shell bending over for the Tea Party to advance his career. Whether or not he's insane, well...yes he is, but that's a different story!

yeah, same here. Plus I like his discourse on foreign policy.

didn't rand win his primary by like 20 points or something?

I think you can basically say this about any politician doing anything.

DVaut- cachet

bimo

wat

drowned out where? are you only watching The Daily Propaganda, i mean, television set?

i heard that in the 1950's, one home on every block had a TeleVision set (henceforth referred to as a "TV")

i heard that by the 1980's, every child watched his (m)TV. M here stands for Music. It is music, and it is television.

i heard that by the 90's, every teenager watched his TV on his bsTV. bsTV stands for big screen TV. also, if you check on www.urbandictionary.edu , in the 2020's it was used to describe the "TV". bsTV stands for "bull****" tv.

On "bsTV" you will find:

-reality shows
-other crap
-ads

bsTV is run by the United States government...


Hold on. Wrong thread. My bad guys.

Ron Paul will not promise to not put earmarks into bills, because, if he doesn't, somebody else will get the money that could have gone to his district.

I saw the interview with him on T.V. some time ago & here is how he explained it:

He is against earmarks. He believes they are unconstitutional because they have not gone before the appropriate committee before being put in the bill.

However, he believes in a balanced budget. He believes in protecting the interests of his district.

Since any money he doesn't get for his district in the form of earmarks, would go to another district, he gets his own earmarks for what his constituents ask for, and then votes against the bill, which gets passed anyways.

It's like the medal for Rosa Parks that he voted against, claiming it was unconstitutional for them to spend our money that way. He has voted against all of these medals given to civilians in the past. Instead he asked all of his peers in the House to pony up a $100.00 to foot the bill, which they of course declined, & he was the only one in the House that voted against it.

He has NEVER voted for a bill that wasn't balanced or had those nasty "earmarks" which he considers wasteful, but gets em for his district, since everyone else is. He justifies his action by voting against the bill, because he knows it's going to get passed. Sweet, eh?

Just like a two-headed coin.

If he didn't get for his district, what everyone else is getting for theirs, there would be no reason for his constituents to keep him in office. They are not "Teabaggers." They are farmers & ranchers & mostly rural communities, who want their fair share of the pie.

Many of you will remember when he ran for President this last time, that he claimed he would veto any bill that came to his desk with any earmarks in them. That was a bold faced lie, and McCain made the same lie. The govt. would shutdown, as no bills would get passed until Congress caved in & sent the President a bill without a single earmark.

If Congress doesn't spend the money, that leaves the Executive Branch to spend the money available for appropriation to the various districts throughout the country as the President sees fit. As the number of earmarks that Congress has sent to the President over the last 10 years has decreased, the number of Executive Branch Earmarks" has increased, because Congress didn't spend the money.

I believe, that what many Republicans are beginning to believe, is that if they can get all of the Republicans to refrain from adding any earmarks to any bills over the next 2 years, they can take over both sides of Congress & the White House on that action alone. And, I believe that's a fair assessment of the public's attitude right now. The gamble: Will the public care 2 yrs down the road?

2 yrs down the road, the main thorn in the "voting public's" side, IMHO, is going to be how much this Obamacare fiasco is costing them and the slaggish job growth. That is why the Republicans are promising to attempt to repeal the law, despite the fact that they know it won't get passed. It's the fact that they tried, coupled with them not putting any earmarks in bills. AND, if the Dems what to cut spending in one area by 10%, they'll say that's not enough and it needs to be 15%. Those three positions should be enough to to take over Congress & the White House & then they'll will be able to go back to ruining our country their way, instead of the Dems way.

The lobbyists must be in loving this! They can pretty much cut in 1/2 the amount of money they pay out, because they can pretty much count on the Dems being a non-issue in 2 years.

Hell, they even got 8 minutes (American Defense International) on FOX yesterday to spout their reasons why cutting the defense budget would be irresponsible. How does a lobbyist get 7-8 minutes on FOX to spout their position against the cuts (in defense of their clients, who are currently getting the money) after the Secretary of Defense has already come out months before & said the cuts where necessary and warned us about the pressure against those cuts that would come from both within & outside the government?

The chump from the ADI didn't even give specifics, just his opinion and FOX didn't give those who are in favor of the cuts their 7-8 minutes to rebuttal.

I guess that among other things, President Eisenhower was a Prophet when he warned us about the Military Industrial Complex in his Farewell Address.

I seriously read the title as "Ron Paul will not join the Tea Party Circus."

I work in software, my fingers just reflexively type cache no matter what imo

Awesome news.

I could see how one would beleive that if they have no understanding of how the tea party started and what it was supposed to represent.

If you're the kind of person who just knee jerk likes everything with an R next to it and think Palin is the most powerful bestest person who should rule the world... the above is perfectly understandable.

Hes a gimmick no one is that big of a caricature