It is interesting to note that while the Perot votes took away from the Republican voters, the Tea Party actually has brought more voters to the Republican side page Another interesting fact is how much Rand Paul really is his own person. He may say he is Republican but this book shows he is very much an independent thinker. I won this book in a First Reads contest Apr 07, Jeff Carpenter rated it it was amazing Shelves: political-science. Excellent book! Gave many insights into a hard fought election victory and the rough and tumble world of Kentucky politics.
Rand Paul explains much of the history of the conservative movement and how the Tea Party is striving to return our great country to these conservative principles. Discusses in detail effective ways to cut spending and regain control of our national debt. Very interesting read. Mar 27, Andrew rated it it was amazing. I am going to write a more in depth review of this book soon, but suffice it to say, this is one of the best political books I have ever read. Paul is a true conservative and leader, and he is someone all conservatives should be behind. He is the only one with the courage to propose real solutions to tough problems that we are facing, it's scary how confused the mainstream really is in this country.
Apr 20, Kimberly rated it really liked it. Great read about ideology and principles behind the Tea Party and the reason for its rise in recent years in response to out of control government in both parties. Paul's principled conservatism is a breath of fresh air in today's political environment. Feb 28, Katrina rated it it was ok. Disclaimer: This was a Firstreads copy. This book is a primer on Tea Party philosophy as told through the campaign of Kentucky's current junior senator. It is short on autobiography and quite philosophical which is refreshing. I was glad to encounter an even-handedness in Rand Paul's laying of blame for the fiscal crisis around both Democrats and Republicans.
He is hard on both sides but especially on those that he considers to be faux conservative Republicans who actually have little interest in Disclaimer: This was a Firstreads copy. He is hard on both sides but especially on those that he considers to be faux conservative Republicans who actually have little interest in the fostering of a limited federal government.
The Tea Party Goes to Washington | Text Book Centre
Of course I expected no less having been a Kentucky-based witness of this 'historical' election. The explanations that he gives are more detailed than I would have initially thought. This book is on the same level as most of Ron Paul's writing. One problem that I encountered was the lack of index and full references both of which I consider to be the hallmark of serious nonfiction To me, the absence of a bibliography makes some of the content less credible.
Throughout, Dr. Paul says things like "some polls even have the Tea Party ranking equal or above both major parties.
However, one does not know what poll. The "Suggestions for Further Reading" is stunted and most likely an afterthought. However, some parts of this book are overly repetitious and annoying. Paul tends to have messianic ambitions evidence by his near-continuous indications of what a pioneer and outsider anti-hero that he is in today's political climate. The self-aggrandizement goes on.
And on. His continual relating that the Tea Party is so endemic to and a part of the American landscape that it seems to grow forth spontaneously almost like amber waves of grain is cloying and an insult to anyone who has ever taken part of any kind of movement politics especially ones that emerge as national phenomenon. There is a lot of infrastructure that goes into it despite however much it may seem to be decentralized. Even the grassroots has to have some system of root maintenance. The book also suffers from some ahistorical or perhaps just poorly informed tendencies.
But one example is the assertion that Thomas Jefferson would be abhorred by debt. Yes, he wrote letters vilifying debt but he is also the same man who was the locus of the Louisiana Purchase a few scant years after the American Revolution sapped the nation's financial reserves. One can find this information in a variety of sources like the Joseph Ellis biography of Jefferson or from Bill Bryson's most recent book. I wasn't joking about how non-sourced material irritates me.
It is a concern if people who so fervently espouse some of these sentiments wish to return to a slave-based economy, a rigidly class-based political system that allowed only landed men to vote and in which women were, for the most part, chattel in order to appease those who wish limited government.
Had one waited for the states to abolish slavery or enfranchise women, well, we would all still be wishing. It may behoove some to who are calling for a "Second American Revolution" that such an event has already occurred: it was call the American Civil War and one can be fairly certain that is not an event that this nation could wish for or withstand.
Overall, this was a fairly easy read that gives some good insight into Kentucky politics as well as the national Tea Party scene. I agree with some of Dr. However, the politics that reverts to a strict Constitutional federal government would be extremely detrimental to much of the gains in liberty that have been undertaken since the document was codified. The devotion to the letter of the Constitution rather than the spirit of it needs fervently to be addressed. View 1 comment. Nov 24, Christopher St rated it really liked it Shelves: biography , listened-on-overdrive.
I'm biased. Rand Paul could scratch out the words "I'm Running for Preezy" in crayon on a sheet of notebook paper, and I would buy it and rate it stars on Goodreads. With that qualifier, this was a great book! Seriously though, this is a great book to get to know Rand Paul. I wish the title were different because it probably seriously limits the range of readers who might pick it up. Part of the book is dedicated to that challenge: the branding of the Tea Party.
The Tea Party was arguably born I'm biased. The Tea Party was arguably born out of Ron Paul's campaign and began as a conservative and libertarian movement. Like any insurgent movement, it faced fierce opposition from both established parties. The Tea Party was co-opted by any number of angry disenfranchisees, which made the movement an easy target for ridicule and scorn from across the spectrum.
Rand Paul has the same sense and realism as his father, but he is attempting to tailor the ideas for mainstream consumption. This is an enormous challenge and results in pragmatic variances from libertarian principles. The result is that the right thinks Rand Paul is "soft on defense", the left thinks he is a "crazy right winger" and so-called "true libertarians" think he is watered down and too willing to make sacrifices.
This book is part biography and part Tea Party manifesto, from the perspective of the man who knows what it was really meant to be about. Sadly, as a result of strife within the republican party and successful establishment both republican and democrat attacks, the Tea Party brand has been associated with racism and pitchforks.
Nothing could be further from the original idea. This is a shame, considering Liberty and limited government are principles that should appeal to all of us. This book is light reading and well worth the time for anyone who wants to know what Rand Paul stands for. May 30, Kenny Murphy rated it liked it. This is a pretty easy to read memoir covering the midterm elections in which Rand Paul became elected a U.
See a Problem?
Senator for the state of Kentucky, also covering the primary and moments of his life leading to him getting involved in politics. Being from Kentucky, I followed this bazaar senate races very closely, the "Aqua Buddha" commercial, the commercial by his primary opponent criticizing Paul for being a Duke basketball fan, a Rand Paul supporter stomping the head of a MoveOn. There was literally something outrageous happening every couple of weeks. The book fortunately doesn't go into any detail about these incidents, only briefly mentions a couple of them.
I have to admit I am biased here, so take everything I say with a grain of salt. I voted for Rand Paul and I think he is a great asset to the Senate. As far as the book goes, I think he does a great job of explaining how non-interventionism is the true conservative foreign policy, contrary to what blowhards like Sean Hannity would have you believe. He also covers his father's presidential campaign and the grassroots movement behind it and the effect the grassroots movement known as the Tea Party had on the midterm elections. Mar 09, Kristen Wampner rated it it was amazing.
Rand Paul is an interesting political figure who was elected to the Senate to represent the Commonwealth of Kentucky as a member of the group of Tea Party candidates. The book that he has written is a combination of his take on what the Tea Party is and how it operates, his campaign and what his positions on various issues are.
Paul spends the majority of time dealing with his campaign and relations with the Tea Party. His view of the Tea Party is quite different from mine, however I feel confide Rand Paul is an interesting political figure who was elected to the Senate to represent the Commonwealth of Kentucky as a member of the group of Tea Party candidates. His view of the Tea Party is quite different from mine, however I feel confident that his view is based on his actual experience with them. Rand Paul's endorsement of the tea party principals and his true brief in them is clear. Hopefully, with his and other supporters of the Tea Party Principals our nation can get back to the need for individual responsibilities.
I liked the simple message. Overall, the book is an interesting and quick read that should be read by people of all political persuasions. I don't know what Paul's future in politics holds, however I sense he may be a leader and is therefore someone to watch in the coming years. I would recommend the book to those who want to understand the Tea Party Jun 10, Shaun Campbell rated it really liked it.
This is a great book for those unfamiliar with the Tea Party. You get to learn a little about the origins of Rand Paul's political career and early life. The book is short and gets to the meat of the matter rather quickly. I would definitely recommend it to those with some political knowledge who want to learn more. Feb 23, Susan rated it did not like it. Well I made it through this last night, after it was given to me yesterday.
He's more radical Departing markedly from the usual or customary than I realized, even stating that our parties are unconstitutional. A must read to understand the new radical movement, of which the last large one gathered in the 's. He and apparently his followers believe that the constitution doesn't allow for federal-education or federal anything else. That's one view, but I find the arguments weak and self- Well I made it through this last night, after it was given to me yesterday.
- What's Inside;
- Excerpt: Rand Paul's 'The Tea Party Goes to Washington' - ABC News;
- Fergus and C (Fergus the Ferry series).
That's one view, but I find the arguments weak and self-serving. He writes a lot about his anti-war policies, ending all foreign-aid, not selling weapons to Muslim countries unless they support Israel, and so forth. Not just limiting, but ending all immediately. And that's my real problem with his ideas. Let me know if you'd like me to pass you my copy. View all 3 comments. Of course Reagan's administration, The Tea party Hero May 14, Cormacjosh rated it did not like it.
This is a book that was ghost written for Senator Rand Paul by Jack Hunter, a man who I respected until he tried to convince me that Glenn Beck was a libertarian. It is absurd the way he pretends to represent the grassroots, while dealing with Beck, Dick Armey and the like, all of whom have had designs on co opting the Tea Party.
Rand has This is a book that was ghost written for Senator Rand Paul by Jack Hunter, a man who I respected until he tried to convince me that Glenn Beck was a libertarian. Rand has done some things I can get behind, but by and large I am disappointed, and hence, find this book to be largely a waste of time. Feb 03, Shea Mastison rated it it was ok. Rand Paul, Tea Party leader, is standing up against the political machine for the average person! Except when he's endorsing major nanny-state politicians within his own party Much like the rest of Rand's career, I was excited at the outset and disappointed the further along things progressed.
His criticisms come across as well articulated, and Rand even seems like a likable enough guy; but a lot of it sounds hollow, after looking at Rand's so-called "pragmatic" voting record. Rand Paul is a Rand Paul, Tea Party leader, is standing up against the political machine for the average person! Rand Paul is a charismatic politician. Let's see how far it gets him. Nov 19, John Ulrich rated it liked it. It wasn't groundbreaking, but I really enjoyed the book and am glad to see Rand follow in his father's footsteps no matter what the pro-Ron, anti-Rand crowd says.
At his core, he is our best voice right now in the Senate. Very few others tackle the liberty minded issues we care about. Thsi book chronicles his campaign and how the Tea Party changed the Republican Party, at least until they were co-opted by neocons. I told the assistant coach that I wouldn't be away long, anticipating that I would arrive to a handful of folks, give a brief speech and leave twenty minutes later.
It was the largest political gathering I had ever witnessed in my town and, at that moment, it was hard to deny that something big was indeed happening. Soaking in the enthusiastic crowd and the electricity in the air, I said to the people that day:. Two hundred years ago Sam Adams and his rabble- rousers threw tea in Boston's harbor. Sam Adams famously said, "It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brushfires in people's minds. Looks like we've got one hell of a brushfire to me. And from that day forward the Tea Party has been keen on fanning the flames, not simply as a tireless minority but as a potential majority, with some polls showing that more Americans identify with the Tea Party than either the Republican or Democratic parties.
But what could Tea Partiers, to borrow from Adams, be so "irate" about? On that great, historic Tea Party day, I stated it in plain English:. We now pay more in taxes than we spend on food, clothes and housing combined. Taxes are high because spending is out of control. We are spending ourselves into oblivion. The Republicans and Democrats together spent a trillion dollars bailing out the banks and then the Democrats alone spent another trillion dollars on pork barrel spending.
Our deficit, as a percentage of gross national product, is greater than at any time in our history. We are bankrupting this country, and the bottom line is that the politicians don't get it. The only message they will understand is a one-way ticket home. Instead of bringing home the bacon, let's bring home the politicians. Bring them home to live with the mess they've created. I ended my speech that day with one simple line: "I'm Rand Paul and I approve this message.
The movement had certainly grown beyond just Ron Paul adherents. The Tea Party began to gather forces from every direction, from Sarah Palin fans to supporters of former Arkansas governor and presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. They all came with one grievance foremost on their mind— the national debt.
This problem had become so pressing and overwhelming that it had set off brushfires in the minds of millions of Americans across the country. The "tea" in Tea Party is often said to stand for "taxed enough already" and, while the Tea Partiers in each city tended to be social conservatives for a strong national defense, unquestionably their primary motivation was driven by a sincere concern over the size and scope of the national debt.
In the beginning, the Left tried to argue that the Tea Party was little more than top-down organized publicity stunts fomented by FOX News. The reality was actually quite different and much more amazing. In Kentucky, each Tea Party started spontaneously and independent of others. To this day, statewide communication between the different Tea Parties in each city is spotty at best, and yet in city after city thousands of folks gather at local events.
This has been the dynamic of the movement nationwide. When a so-called "national" Tea Party convention was held last year, state and local organizers throughout the country issued statements to make it known that there was no national organization that spoke for them. The Tea Party sprang in each state de novo. It wasn't created by a network. It wasn't created by a billionaire. It came from the people. It has no single leader, is often adamantly against leadership and threatens the power structure of both political parties.
It threatens the perquisites and privileges of the establishment and, therefore, many on both sides of the aisle think it must be destroyed. That the Tea Party has so many enemies in the establishment media and government should tell its members they're doing something right. On the campaign trail, I always described the Tea Party as an "open mic night," or a forum to redress our grievances. It came into being to fill a niche that neither party allows—dissent.
Americans who normally put in their day's work, arrive home to their spouses and kids, and go to school events and soccer games are largely ignored by Washington, but they are now worried enough to march in the streets. As much as the Left wants to depict the Tea Party as an angry mob, it is better described as a multitude of concerned and worried average citizens who have spontaneously banded together because they fear the consequences of massive overspending and debt.
I've traveled thousands of miles across Kentucky over the past year, and I've met the Tea Party, one person at a time, one city at a time. They often come from different social, cultural and economic backgrounds but unite to address head-on the daunting problems facing our nation. And although they come together, they never really come together too much.
There really is no Kentucky Tea Party—simply independent groups, organized by city, inspired by patriotism and informed by common sense. Has there been a movement in the last hundred years where in many cities across the country people just spontaneously show up for a protest?
This happened on April 15, in about ten cities in Kentucky but probably over a thousand cities nationwide. This is quite amazing when you consider that not only do the Tea Parties not communicate with one another, but they don't really communicate with anyone nationally. Each group values its own autonomy. In my experience, the Tea Party doesn't have aspirations to coalesce as a national organization in large part because they so dislike rules and authority. Tea Partiers often don't like to have politicians speak at their events because they don't want to be too attached to the political machine, unlike Republican or Democratic gatherings where the politicians do all the talking and citizens are rarely given a forum to express their opinion.
Such party meetings are typically made up of a small clique of partisan insiders who jealously guard their own political turf. The Tea Party is the opposite: a large group of unabashed, nonpartisan outsiders who want everyone to have their say yet doggedly reject letting a single individual or a handful of individuals speak for them or the movement. I said time and again throughout my campaign that the Tea Party movement equally chastises both Republicans and Democrats.
Of course, this has always fit me to a tee, since my constant criticism of my own party's job performance is one of the reasons that I was not endorsed by establishment Republicans during the primary. Many conservatives were outraged over Bush's deficits and spending. They felt betrayed, and rightfully so. The dominant message of the Tea Party is fear that our national debt and budget deficit—the fault of both parties—will destroy our nation.
Though the movement is heavily decentralized—and what some might call disorganized - advocating for a much smaller, leaner federal government continues to be its one unifying principle. The extent to which the movement's critics not only dismiss grassroots voters' grievances but the Tea Party's very legitimacy is amusing. Commenting on the April 15, rallies, then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, "This [Tea Party] initiative is funded by the high end—we call it 'AstroTurf,' it's not really a grassroots movement.
It's AstroTurf by some of the wealthiest people in America to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich instead of for the great middle class. There's no question that some in the political establishment have tried to latch on to the Tea Party or manipulate the movement for their own benefit. Any Tea Partier could tell you this, and they all are aware of it precisely because maintaining their independence is so important. The movement is keenly aware of possible establishment-type interlopers and, if anything, is probably overly suspicious—in fact Tea Partiers are quite the opposite of being dupes, as critics such as Pelosi love to portray them.
Pelosi's view of the Tea Party is typical of elitists. Or as pollsters Scott Rasmussen and Douglas E. T he political class's assault on the tea parties has been continuing and systematic. Indeed, Rasmussen Reports has shown that 87 percent of the political class views "tea party member" as a negative description, while almost half—or 48 percent—of ordinary mainstream voters see it as a positive. The reason for this broad-based support is simple: Voters in our survey said that they believe that the current leadership in both parties has failed to achieve policies that address their most pressing concerns—creating jobs and?
Furthermore, respondents were clear that they want a pro-growth agenda,? They view the tea party movement as having a unique contribution in achieving these goals. Given today's anti-Washington, anti-incumbent sentiment, it is hardly surprising that voters have largely rejected the efforts of political, academic and media elites—on both right and left—to ignore or marginalize the tea party. Many among these elitists have now branded the tea party movement as AstroTurf, an inauthentic political movement funded by wealthy and influential businessmen.
Republicans have been promising limited government for years and have delivered nothing. Conservatives simply don't believe the Republican establishment anymore and support the Tea Party precisely because it is both outside of and in opposition to both major parties—not simply an auxiliary of the GOP. Political elites have attempted to dismiss the movement because to recognize its power and influence is a direct threat to both parties.
This notion that the movement was somehow created by the Republican Party is particularly laughable when it was painfully clear in my own primary that the entire GOP establishment wished that my campaign and the Tea Party would just go away. Rasmussen and Schoen outline the movement's independence, power and popularity:. The Tea Party movement has become one of the most powerful and extraordinary movements in recent American political history. It is as popular as both the Democratic and Republican parties. It is potentially strong enough to elect senators, governors and congressmen.
It may even be strong enough to elect the next president of the United States—time will tell. But the Tea Party movement has been one of the most derided and minimized and, frankly, most disrespected movements in American history. Yet, despite being systematically ignored, belittled, marginalized, and ostracized by political, academic, and media elites, the Tea Party movement has grown stronger and stronger The Tea Party continues to endure and grow whether the establishment likes it or not. The slanders and lies political elites have directed toward the Tea Party not only have had little effect, but simply make it more attractive to countless Americans fed up with the condescending attitudes of those elites.
And not surprisingly, questioning the Tea Party's legitimacy has been only one of many attack tactics. As I mentioned, the Tea Party is perhaps described as an open mic night, something anyone who attends a party event would immediately understand. But it seems some who would never dare attend a Tea Party rally also see a sort of nightclub dynamic, though not in the positive manner I do.
Each hears a shout from the audience, consisting of a bizarre but just barely plausible fear or hatred or neurosis or prejudice. Each of these words better describes Olbermann and his network, and no event I've attended even remotely resembles the left-wing pundit's characterization of Tea Partiers. Chicago Tribune syndicated columnist Clarence Page did something few mainstream columnists do—he actually attended a Tea Party event before he wrote about it.
Page, who criticizes the movement as "a slogan in search of an agenda," nevertheless has effectively gauged and described its genesis: "Tea Parties lack much in the way of formal structure, leadership, or agendas because their movement is an orphan, unified by a shared sense of abandonment by Republicans and cluelessness by Democrats.
Most Tea Parties lack any formal structure, board of directors, etc. It truly is a spontaneous, grassroots movement for people to air grievances with their government. In this spirit of dissent, the Tea Party is quintessentially American, and I respect Page even though he doesn't agree with the Tea Party message , simply because he doesn't attempt to vilify the movement with race baiting and name calling.
The vast majority of Tea Parties are held in public squares and public parks, not convention centers and ballrooms. They don't require tickets or pre-registration.
They draw all kinds of people and there are always a few there to provoke and carry offensive signs. If you get , people together there are going to be a few outliers and, in a public square or park, event organizers can't stop people from standing around and holding stupid signs. Still, the Tea Party's critics love to characterize the entire movement by the actions of a few.
Ironically, when discussing the subject of welfare, liberals are always quick to defend welfare programs despite the many recipients who take advantage of the system. When discussing Islam, respectable journalists are always careful to note that terrorists and radicals do not define that religion. But the Tea Party is regularly held to an entirely different standard, where if a few people show up—out of a crowd of thousands—with signs comparing the president to a fascist or communist dictator it becomes enough to disparage and dismiss the entire movement.
The double standard doesn't stop there. My family and I attended the first inaugural parade for George W. Bush and some of the signs were so offensive and vulgar that I had to shield the eyes of my seven-year-old son. Throughout his presidency, Bush was routinely depicted as Hitler, Stalin, Satan, you name it.
‘The Tea Party Goes To Washington’: Rand Paul Inks Book Deal
Protesters bumped up against us hurling the F bomb in front of our children. It comes with the job. Does this necessarily mean that every American who might be sympathetic to anti-war protesters or who might have been critical of Bush's foreign policy is some sort of crazy person?
I certainly don't believe that and, given the bipartisan nature of the Tea Party, I don't think many of its members today would be so quick to cast the same aspersion. Most of the Tea Party's liberal critics are not so generous, attributing sinister motives to grassroots conservatives that are virtually non-existent. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote of a town hall protest in , in which Tea Party folks were letting their voices be heard: "Instead of a multicultural tableau of beaming young idealists on screen, we see ugly scenes of mostly older and white malcontents.
Who's bringing up race here and what does it have to do with anything? Her fellow Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote of the same protesters that "they're probably reacting less to what Mr. Obama is doing, or even to what they've heard about what he's doing, than to who he is," adding that Tea Party anger re? Should, or would, the NAACP repudiate the "racist elements" in their midst, given the extreme rhetoric of figures like Rev. Of course not. The decentralized nature of the Tea Party means no one really controls the movement, much less possesses the ability to rein in or prevent the occasional, random extremist.
An organization like the NAACP, which is structured, would be more capable of denouncing undesirable elements in its ranks than the Tea Party, given its lack of structure—though I won't be holding my breath for the organization to be doing any such denouncing anytime soon. At a campaign event during the election a liberal reporter approached a member of my staff and asked him how it felt to be the only African American in the room. He was offended. So was I. So were most of my staff, including other African Americans. It was another case of liberals' own prejudices against the Tea Party dictating their perception of the movement as opposed to the reality at hand.
My experience with the Tea Party is that it's actually quite diverse, more so than the Republican Party.