sailingaway
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2010
- Messages
- 72,103
etc.
They think he is too principled. They put it in terms of holding out for a utopian society, since saying you oppose the too principled part probably isn't as persuasive.
Still, hitting him for preferring the Constitution to NAFTA just doesn't strike me as persuasive to the common man. Doubtless it will impact donations from business interests, however.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59581.html
Here is the actual Club for Growth white paper: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/whitepapers/?subsec=137&id=921
It has a lot of good stuff in it, if you ignore the utopia vs. NAFTA part and their complete refusal to acknowledge that the separation of powers in the constitution REQUIRES that spending be earmarked by Congress as a PROTECTION to the people against a dictator, but then, they make it clear they want a line item veto which also erodes separation of powers keeping the power of the purse in Congress.
They think he is too principled. They put it in terms of holding out for a utopian society, since saying you oppose the too principled part probably isn't as persuasive.
Still, hitting him for preferring the Constitution to NAFTA just doesn't strike me as persuasive to the common man. Doubtless it will impact donations from business interests, however.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59581.html
Here is the actual Club for Growth white paper: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/whitepapers/?subsec=137&id=921
It has a lot of good stuff in it, if you ignore the utopia vs. NAFTA part and their complete refusal to acknowledge that the separation of powers in the constitution REQUIRES that spending be earmarked by Congress as a PROTECTION to the people against a dictator, but then, they make it clear they want a line item veto which also erodes separation of powers keeping the power of the purse in Congress.
Last edited:
