What is it exactly that makes Christine O’Donnell (the candidate pictured above) a "Tea Party" or "anti-establishment" candidate?
Is it the mere fact that most people have agreed to call her that while having at best only a vauge understanding of what the term actually means, or is it specific policy reforms she advocates? If the latter, then what are those policy reforms? Do her supporters even know?
Just so everyone knows, the reason I'm suspicious of O'Donnell is that, in the following clip, she accuses Obama of having increased federal spending across the board "except" for so-called "defense" (read: corporate-orchestrated
imperialism):
And as Ron Paul himself would readily attest, that is a bald-faced
lie:
-------------------------------
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16181The Pentagon Budget: Largest Ever and Growingby Sara Flounders
Global Research, November 19, 2009
International Action Center - 2009-11-07
On Oct. 28, President Barack Obama signed the 2010 Defense Authorization Act, the largest military budget in U.S. history.
It is not only the world's largest military budget but is larger than the military expenditures of the whole rest of the world combined. And it is growing nonstop. The 2010 military budget--which doesn't even cover many war-related expenditures--is listed as $680 billion. In 2009 it was $651 billion and in 2000 was $280 billion. It has more than doubled in 10 years.
[
Continued...]
-------------------------------
