No one can deny the nascent phenomenon of the liberty movement in America. It is riding a populist wave against government-insider deals that are making the rich richer and the poor poorer and sacrificing individual liberty in the process.
An interesting mix of Republicans and Democrats are involved in this uprising, blurring old labels like conservative and liberal, but the real showdown is happening in the race for the GOP nomination.
.jpeg.aspx) |
| Michele Bachmann (Getty Images) |
While all the candidates now pay homage to the movement, the real question is this: Who can best ride this wave? Michele Bachmann, a three-term congresswoman from Minnesota? Or Ron Paul, a 12-term congressman from Texas?
Here are the pertinent points. Bachmann is a new face and is polling well, at least for now. Her best chance — indeed, her only chance — is in Iowa. A win there and she can conceivably pick up delegates in the South as well.
Her critics describe her as a less cerebral version of Sarah Palin. Yep, your eyes are not deceiving you, and that means that with each success the media scrutiny or vetting will increase.
The real concern about Bachmann is her timing. Is she serious about running for president after only a few years in Congress? Moreover, activists in the liberty movement decry her record. As a legislator in Minnesota she allegedly proposed $60 million in earmarks.
In Congress, in 2007, she appropriated $3.7 million in federal pork. She is a poor poster girl for freedom from big government. A report shows Bachmann’s counseling clinic got $30,000 in state and federal subsidies. A family farm received a $260,000 federal farm subsidy.
And here is the big one: In 2008 she voted for Nancy Pelosi’s stimulus
 |
| Ron Paul (AP photo) |
bill.
Ron Paul, by contrast, is not only the father of the modern liberty movement — the man who made it fashionable to believe in the constitution again — but he has been consistent over a lifetime and seemingly incorruptible.
By comparison, Bachmann looks almost opportunistic. As a U. S. Treasury Department attorney she allegedly went after a taxpayer earning less than $10,000 a year — and at a time when Timothy Geithner, Obama’s Treasury Secretary, wasn’t paying HIS taxes.
In contrast, Ron Paul has been the champion of the little guy, arguing for years, for example, against government taxing of waitresses’ tips.
Bachmann has appeal to social conservatives. She is a Christian, a Lutheran, but then so is Ron Paul, who was Lutheran in upbringing and now attends a Baptist church.
Paul refuses to promote his faith for political purposes but told a reporter in 2007 that he “believed in Jesus Christ as his personal savior” and sought God’s guidance in many of his important life decisions. He is happily married to Carol, his teenage sweetheart.
Consider the following. Ron Paul has money and a ground game. And he has both in spades. Having a ground game this early has not been seen since the Reagan campaign of 1980.
In fact, one could argue that those two things are all that matters at this stage in the process. Romney and Huntsman have money and with it they will be able to hire foot soldiers but they represent a return to George W. Bush’s version of a Republican ”conservative,” which means $500 billion annual deficits instead of $1.2 trillion.
Well, you say, but Bachmann is tied for first in this week’s Iowa poll. Keep in mind, Rudolph Giuliani was the front-runner at this same stage in the process last time. And his eventual, total delegate count at the Republican National Convention was zero.
Only a few months ago, Donald Trump was soaring in the polls. Which brings up the subject of vetting. Trump was not ready for the nation to learn all about how he built his casinos and all the details of his private life. With each success for Bachmann, the scrutiny will increase.
There is a reason why most candidates have to run for president numerous times. But Ron Paul is vetted.
Finally, there is the whole thing about making a decision and sticking to it. Let’s say you move to Bachmann because you are impressed with her polling numbers. And then the media exposes some story that hits her hard and the numbers drop. Or Ron Paul spends some television advertising and his numbers climb. Will you move back?
The problem with moving from candidate to candidate is that each time you move you lose.
Bachmann ’s showing in the polls has one explanation: media exposure. She has borrowed Ron Paul’s views and his tea party, and she is appealing to the masses with his arguments. The media have given it all some air time, something consistently denied to Ron Paul.
But don’t worry, don’t panic. The fact that the public has responded is a good thing, an encouraging sign. Remember, the media did its worst against Ronald Reagan in 1980, calling him a racist and a warmonger and he eventually prevailed. His cause was to save America from totalitarian communism. Our cause is to save it from ourselves.
Stay true. Be positive. It’s still early. Ron Paul’s message will get out.
Meanwhile, Paul is now poised to pull off an upset of historic proportions. I, for one, am not going to miss it.
Ron Paul and Evangelical Christians.
Doug Wead 
Doug, I am not trying to be a smart alec here, but I have an important question. Don’t tax attorney’s usually defend their clients instead of going after them, or am I ignorant of who she worked for? Did she work for the IRS, or did she have her own practice? I need to get all my facts straight about each candidate before I make a decision. Thanks.
Doug – can you please provide source(s) for critics saying “Bachmann is a less cerebral version of Palin”? I am googling and can’t find any sources for that other than your work. Thanks.
I like Michelle and applaud her for joining Ron Paul for some Liberty caucus lunches (or whatever they call it) and trying to learn about Austrian Economics and the Fed. I worry she doesn’t get it that it is a paradox to be for small government at home, and at the same time, promote big government foreign policy. She also voted for Tarp???ouch.
Nice cheap shot, Doug. The Indian was probably pursued because it would set a precedent for other similar cases.
Julie, have you ever heard of google?
Wow! Incredible article Mr. Wead. Absolutely incredible!
I think I will begin following your Blog Mr. Wead…good stuff!!!
Very nice article. Style is no substitute for substance.
“A report shows Bachmann’s counseling clinic got $30,000 in state and federal subsidies.”
And how do you avoid taking clients who have only state aid for coverage?
“A family farm received a $260,000 federal farm subsidy.” A rented farm. So now you are wacking the renters of farms? And attributing that “misdeed” to the owners? Without further ado, I have to conclude you are a typical Ron Paul progandistic fraud.
I have supported Bachmann against the communists for 10 years of public service engagement…where have you been? I have also given to every anti-communist in every state where I can help make a difference. And she has been vilified non-stop by communist adversaries ever since. She is the most vilified target of the Saul-Alinskyites and their owned MSM in Minnesota…which is saying a hell of a lot. Ron Paul they just ignore, as they know that the d4ruggie is a loser.
Doug:
“A report shows Bachmann’s counseling clinic got $30,000 in state and federal subsidies.”
Paul Ross:
“And how do you avoid taking clients who have only state aid for coverage?”
Look up the meaning of the word subsidy. The amount the clinic received from patients paying through medicaid-backed companies was $137,000.
Doug:
“A family farm received a $260,000 federal farm subsidy.”
Paul Ross:
“A rented farm. So now you are wacking the renters of farms? And attributing that “misdeed” to the owners?”
The farm was owned by her father-in-law, and Ms. Bachmann still retains partnership in the farm.
According to Bachmann’s own financial disclosure forms, she reported receiving between $32,503 and $105,000 in income from the farm, between 2006 and 2009.
Paul Ross:
“Without further ado, I have to conclude you are a typical Ron Paul progandistic fraud.”
Without further ado, I must conclude that you are no intellectual. Rather, you are a typical half-wit muttering an ill-informed ‘rebuttal’ to a man who’s shoes you are not fit to shine.
Paul Ross:
“I have supported Bachmann against the communists for 10 years of public service engagement…where have you been? I have also given to every anti-communist in every state where I can help make a difference. And she has been vilified non-stop by communist adversaries ever since. She is the most vilified target of the Saul-Alinskyites and their owned MSM in Minnesota…which is saying a hell of a lot. Ron Paul they just ignore, as they know that the d4ruggie is a loser.”
Ron Paul & Doug Wead both have track-records that more than speak for themselves with no example needed to be given by me. However, now that you mention it, who are you to question the credibility of either of these distinguished gentlemen?
From your inadequate command of the English language, to your infatuation with communism, you show yourself to be the type of person that currently plagues our great nation.
(and a loser to boot)
Paul Ross, as soon as you call someone a ‘druggie’ and ‘loser’ when they are clearly neither you lose all credibility. It demonstrates the emotional knee-jerk reactions of many neoconservatives (and leftists I may add).
Bachmann is trying to ride the wave that is the Tea Party Movement. In case you did not know it was started by the ‘Paultards’ you hate so much. But she is not a Constitutionalist. She may talk about it to get the support from voters, but if its a position that violates how she views the world religiously or morally then damn the Constitution. Her stance on the so-called ‘Marriage Protection Act’ is a good example.
If people look at voting records they’ll see who the real conservative is. I don’t understand how the “tea party” followers of Bachmann can swallow her voting record.
Ron Paul has been true to his principles regardless of what people think and this was expressed during the 2008 elections. Bachmann should do the right thing and withdraw so she won’t divide the votes.
For those interested, please pass this link on to your favorite Bachmann supporter. 😉
http://speakup-usa.com/?p=933
Cool, but you misspelled Michele and Bachmann every single time. Only the photo caption is correct.
Sorry, meant “almost” every single time. 🙂