The Insignificance of the CPAC Straw Poll
by Andrew MellonThe enthusiasm at this year’s CPAC was palpable. Conservatives turned out in record droves, optimistic and on the offensive against a government they rightly feel has run amok. Dick Cheney and John Bolton amongst others predicted that Barack Obama would be a one term President. I would take a more cautious view. Beatable as I think President Obama is based upon his bombastic arrogance, blind elitism, blatant dishonesty, and boundless seemingly intentionally destructive policies, if the 2010 CPAC straw poll tells us anything it is that the conservative movement is still searching for its opponent.
Before delving into the numbers, it is important to note that while roughly 1/4 of the 10,000 in attendance at CPAC participated in the poll, around 50% of these voters were students. And indeed the youthful Campaign for Liberty crowd was highly visible and energized throughout the convention, which explains the extent of Congressman Ron Paul’s success. Paul, the staunch libertarian came in first with 31% of the vote, Mitt Romney the establishment candidate second with 22% and Sarah Palin the (absent from CPAC) Tea Partier third but lagging significantly behind at 7%.
What is fascinating about the results is that the top three spots were split between three different types of conservatives, and further that the top two spots were divided between two candidates so bipolar. In my view, Ron Paul comes off as unrefined, radical and principled, while Mitt Romney comes off as polished, moderate and slickly political. Sarah Palin alternatively is the homey if not hokie populist.
As with all candidates, each in their own way is flawed. Leaving aside Paul’s perceived radicalism, disproportionate support from the youth, marginalization in the Republican Party and thus almost assured unelectability in a national election, Ann Coulter’s half-joking argument that she liked everything about Ron Paul but his stance on defense probably best reflects conservative sentiments. The merits of Paul’s belief in Austrian economics, strict adherence to the Constitution and defense of the individual are great, but his world view is warped and potentially suicidal.
Ron Paul and others in the conservative movement like Pat Buchanan have been outspoken in their criticism of our alliance with Israel and our battles in the Middle East, making the naive argument that terrorists attack us almost solely because of these two factors. They fail to mention that as was well-documented during Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer’s fabulous FDI presentation, the Koran calls on Muslims to destroy those who will not submit to Sharia through both outright war and obfuscation. They fail to mention the ties between Islam and Nazism going back to WWII, and Muslims’ battles with Jews and Christians going back for centuries. They fail to understand that while generally speaking, most conservatives would agree that isolation except when absolutely necessary is in America’s best interest, we should ardently defend Israel because it is fighting on the front lines of a battle against an ideology that wishes to destroy us. They fail to understand that if we do not at times preemptively and forcefully strike enemies who themselves only understand force, we can kiss goodbye liberty and the pursuit of happiness because we will be endangering American life.
Surely reasonable conservatives can debate on the prudence of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the efficacy or lack thereof of nation-building in general. But it is the overall notion and one espoused by Barack Obama himself that terrorists attack us because of things we have done, whether it be in diplomacy or past battles that is naive, intellectually dishonest and destructive. Romney and Palin presumably understand this, and while the vast majority of Americans seem to understand this as well, the small government message overwhelmingly trumped concerns over terrorism at CPAC.
As for Romney’s weakness, besides his Mormonism which may again hurt him nationally, the fact of the matter is that this is a Governor that implemented a state-run healthcare system. During a time in which conservatives specifically and Americans generally are against government intervention in all aspects of our lives and especially in healthcare, how could we be so hypocritical as to support a candidate who implemented socialized healthcare in his own state? I grant that Romney came from Massachusetts and that a Massachusetts Governor could not govern like a southern Governor, but my read is that he is first and foremost a politician who happens to be nominally conservative. I do not believe that the Tea Partiers and other activists in the movement are looking for sterile, opportunist candidates.
On Sarah Palin, I think broadly speaking most conservatives would agree with her policy positions. As a person, I think we all want to like her, and the constant callous and cowardly attacks on her by the left alone engender at the very least our sympathy. She is not the northeastern Ivy League elitist, nor is she the slick standard politician and so Palin represents an attractive alternative to the status quo. But frankly there are times when I see her interviewed that I have to cringe. Her positions often seem superficial. She knows how to articulate the main talking points, but I have not seen an ability to delve deeper into the nuts and bolts of the issues.
This is not to say that professorial types are any better, but a more substantive grounding than what we have seen is needed. This is something that a Reagan had. If one looks back at Reagan’s writings, this is a man who had a fundamental understanding of principles, and an unmatched adroitness in concisely breaking the issues down according to them. We may never have another Reagan, but a viable candidate will need to have a more serious understanding of the challenges we face. This is not something that can be developed merely by surrounding oneself with smart advisers.
Most telling from the straw poll was the fact that 53% of voters were unsatisfied with the current field of Republican presidential candidates. I believe that conservatives want someone who they see as embodying certain traits of all three of the top vote-getters. They want someone with the libertarian streak and principled Constitutionalism of a Ron Paul, the professionalism and private sector experience of a Mitt Romney and the humanity and commitment to defense of a Sarah Palin.
But Republicans need not fret. 2012 is a long way away, and our first focus should be on catapulting principled conservatives to the Congress in 2010. Most importantly, we must keep in mind that though we need political representation to get the government out of the way, it is not a leader or set of leaders but the American people that are going to restore this nation to greatness.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
263 Comments
It's not about Ron Paul, it's about voting for someone that you know is telling you the truth of what they really think. It's about Americans TIRED of being lied to. It's about America tired of weasels who won't stand up for what they SAID they believed when they were voted in. Ron Paul does not have that problem.
Well written and insightful. A spoiled, polished rich boy, a radical liberatarian (oxymoron?) and a hockey mom pitbull with lipstick. I know which one I'll vote for.
The straw poll is just that…A poll. Mitt won it the last three times, and well…That did a helluva lot for him now didn't it?
I personally like Ron Paul, and especially appreciate his voting record, something which many people don't even consider. Paul is a man of honest integrity, and moral principles that would help lead this country out of despair. Paul is however a bit to much of an Isolationist for me, but his concept is sound. Not quite sure if he is Presidential material, but would certainly be a huge asset as a VP to any candidate. If anything, I would love to see Paul in the Senate, and above that, be the chair of the Weighs and Means committee. He would most likely do more good for the country holding that post, than as POTUS. He's a good man, with no skeletons in the closet.
You’ve seen this excuse from the neoconned spokesmen and media: "Ron Paul won because a majority of CPAC attendees were college students, and we know that’s his strength. But they don’t reflect the country as a whole."
The truth: The percentage of students declined this year, to 48% from 52% in 2009. And the percentage of registrants aged 18 to 25 also declined this year, to 54% from 57% in 2009. (The percentage of those under 18 stayed the same both years – 2%.) So the growth in Ron Paul’s popularity cannot be dismissed as merely a surge of college or young voters.
Young people are the future of our nation and our movement, blah blah blah, you’ve heard that endlessly from every politician in the land. So when do you start dumping on the young people? When you need an excuse for explaining away the Ron Paul phenomenon.
The pie got larger this year (more registrants), but CPAC demographics remained remarkably constant from 2009 to 2010. So the surge in support for Ron Paul cannot be explained with some sort of "takeover" conspiracy.
As Jefferson said, the American principle supports the states as versus the central government, the counties as versus the states, the towns as versus the counties, the wards as versus the towns, and the individual as versus all. Radical decentralism is the libertarian principle.
Ron Paul is a man who believes in sound money, an end to Marx’s favorite tax, a non-interventionist foreign policy, no EU-style North America, getting out of the UN and NATO, ending the Fed, and–most terrible of all–he admires Mises and Rothbard. Those of you who want to vilify the man, want to call him a "loon" or marginalize his message don't know your history. May I suggest you bone up?
Beck is right about one thing; it's not about the R or the D. It's about Americanism. You're either a patriot or your not.
My God people! Do your research and you will discover that one man has been delivering the real conservative message for decades.
The straw poll is more accurate than conservative media outlets. Ron Paul appeals to Americans and not just klans men. Taxation is out of control and at the end of the day, Bush and Cheney should be indited for war crimes and Bolton is a incapacitated fascist idiot!
Indeed. Ron Paul is one of a dying breed. I hope Rand follows closely in his fathers foot steps…!
Please god, not Ron Paul.
Mitt's time was 2008. When he dropped out and left us to the mercies of John McCain he lost his base. I believe Romney could've beaten Obama but now, with the baggage that you mentioned, I don't think he stands a chance.
I refuse to discuss Ron Paul, and I don't think Sarah is even going to run.
To discuss any cadidate right now is premature anyway. No one was even looking at GW Bush until after he won re-election in Texas in '98. That being said I don't think any of the people listed will be serious candidates, Romney because he gave us McCain, Paul because he's nuts and Sarah because (sadly) I don't think she'll run. I may be wrong.
Thank goodness Sarah Palin was in the bottom. She is not the answer for this nations problems. She is as polarizing as Barack Obama.
How can an "isolationist" be for free trade and diplomacy (the keystones of Paul's foreign policy)? The isolationist label better fits the pro-war/pro-confrontation Republicans.
This conversation among conservatives about Ron Paul is abject absurdity. Of all of the scams going down, so-called journalists will pick up any stupid story that comes along. Explain the scams, then you can call yourself journalism, outside of that, your an entertainment magazine:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/322551...
Both the DNC and the GOP are in bed with these con-men. It is sheer insanity and absolute corruption, for anyone person, at this point, to continue to promote any person associated with, a part to, et al
Further, it is the MEDIA CONGLOMERATE, that continuously feeds the fat pig that is this corrupt election system. When it takes the Rolling Stone to provide the facts about the crooks-n-scams, and it takes the NationalEnquirer to hunt down these slime-balls and to show the public who they really are, you know your trapped moving chairs on the deck of the Titanic.
I couldn't agree with you more with your assessments of the candidates.
I don't think Palin is ready yet.
Between Ron Paul and Mitt Romney, who would be more likely to adjust their world view to come closer to the ideal?
Is it more likely that Ron Paul to adjust his foreign relations/national defense world view? Or will Mitt Romney adjust his economic/small government to be closer to the libertarian ideal?
If neither, then we will be faced with the eternal question….which of the two evils do we vote for in 2012?
Oh noes! RuPaul won the straw poll! Spin Andrew Spin!
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/322551...
Read it and weep. The few that stand against the FED-WALLSTREET-GOP-DNC mafia machine get taken out by these so-called journalist. People want to follow the kool-aid-kids because its easy lifting, they don't want to do the hard work of cleaning house. There is a long list of unanswered questions surrounding Sarah Palin's actions following her resignation, yet these kool-aid-kids won't ask the questions. Its Obamanation all over again, except the pig has lipstick this time around.
I attended CPAC and can tell you that Ron Paul's support was overwhelmingly concentracted amoung students.
Here are the results:
Ron Paul 31%
Mitt Romney 22%
Sarah Palin 7%
Tim Pawlenty 6%
Mike Pence 5%
Newt Gingrich 4%
Mike Huckabee 4%
Mitch Daniels 2%
John Thune 2%
Rick Santorum 2%
Haley Barbour 1%
Since 54% of the straw poll voters were between 18 and 25 years of age, the tally is highly skewed. If 50% of this group voted for Paul, that is represents practically ALL of Paul’s votes. Leaving aside the student vote, Romney would have most likely received in the 40% plus range.
I love Ron Paul and think he is one of the few politicans that can be trusted. However I also feel that we are currently under attack from radical moslems and need to have a strong national defense. I love Sarah Palin and hope that she continues to use her considerable appeal to further the Tea Party movement. I think Romney has a lot of money and many faults to be considered as a real Conservative. I sometimes think the main reason that Romney is considered a viable Republican canidate is that there are so many political strategists in the party who would like to make him their client. Money talks and Romney has proven he will spend his own $60 million to further his narcissism. Hey, nothing wrong with that especially in a weak economy. Spread the wealth brother. So we need to look not to just one leader but to ourselves as the only real hope for a better America. Get used to it baby. You can't shirk off the responsibility to any one person anymore. We have consistently tried that and look where that has gotten us.
im a muslim and the Koran never mentions what you just wrote in this article. Please do your RESEARCH
RON PAUL 2012!!
The only obstacle and I do mean the only obstacle is his age. And I too believe that the apple doen't fall far from the tree.
As you can see from Swamp's comments…Ron Paul's supporters easily swing to the far left. I agree with much of Ron Paul's domestic agenda but American must protect ourselves from Jihadists who are at war with us.
Most importantly, we must keep in mind that though we need political representation to get the government out of the way, it is not a leader or set of leaders but the American people that are going to restore this nation to greatness.
Personally, while I have always liked Ron Paul and his ideas, his opponents have stygmatized him as a nut. John Thune is the most solid.
Ron Paul only appeals to those who do not understand the way the world really works. It sonds good. He is intelligent but naive. There is nothing we can do internally in the United States that will change how the world banking system operates. Do I think there are problems and that too much power is vested in too few individuals? The answer to that question is YES I DO but again there is nothing we can do internally that will change that. If we were to follow Ron Pauls advice all that would be accomplished is that the United States would not be able to trade. The U.S. Dollar would become meaningless. We need realistic solutions and not simplistic thinking.
one word dakealo, EARMARKS?
You're confusing isolationist with non-interventionist. Big Difference!
"We need realistic solutions and not simplistic thinking."
I would respectfully disagree. We indeed need "simplistic thinking".
"Realistic thinking" is what has gotten US into this mess. Academia, loves to baffle the little folks with bullshit..
constituional tender would fix our economy thats why the international banks need fiat money to take our wealth and leave us debt.
That is correct.
It would take 536 'Miracles' to unwind the mess. Make that 535. Scott Brown already won. No time to rest.
Yeppers…lysander could benefit from a little research it appears?
srhoades, I seem to remember 08 R primaries differently, maybe I'm wrong. Hucks' numbers were sig-
nificantly below Mitts, but Huck signed on to help McLame by staying in the race, pulling primary votes
away from Mitt. In other words, Huck threw up a 'screen' for McLame, & blocked Mitt out. If Huck had
pulled out, a big percentage of his votes would have gone to Mitt. Mitt only pulled out when he realized
Huck would not pull out, thus continuing was futile. I remember this because, no one discussed or ques-
tioned WHY Huck was staying in when his numbers had fallen so low. Who pulled the strings, Huck was
ready to quit, had no money, but hung on never the less.
Col Allen West or Marco Rubio. Not a part of the Washington Viral Constitutional Destroying Infection. Sorry Ron Paul fans, at the end of the day he is one of them and has been infected with the disease wether you believe it or not because Washington corrupts absolutely. Check his pork projects that he inserts into bills that he knows will pass, but then votes against. Hey I voted against it and hated it, but I get to benefit from it and love it. Can you say PRINCIPLED HYPOCRITE. West and Rubio have the Personality, Physical Aesthetics plus records which reflect America's Exceptionalism and are Washington outsiders.
If it's so insignificant than why do an article on it?
What is Constitutional Tender? Would it be accepted as anything of value by the rest of the world? Money only has value when EVERYONE agrees it has and that means the rest of the world. I may not like it, you may not like it but that is the way the world really works. If you want the value of the dollar to increase it is both good and bad at the same time. If it is valued too highly no one will be able to afford anything we make or produce outside of this country and eventually in this country. If it is valued too low then we cannot afford anything produced, mined, or supplied from outside the country. Simplistic thinkig leads to tragedy all the time.
If Ron Paul is "our candidate" in 2012, our national security, is screwed. His foreign policy philosophy, is as nieve, as bho's!
Huckabee did the final damage in West Virginia….I remember that….I
believe Romney pulled out then…Huckabee is a jerk!…I sure hope someone
steps up to the plate cause I'm not happy with any of the presumed choices
now….
Wow…Do you realize that Ron Paul is just trying to recover money pulled from his district in the first place? What's wrong with getting a return on the districts tax "investment"? Also, he is attempting to get this return of tax money to his district, because it is for projects his constituency wants. This doesn't make it right or wrong, but at least he listens to his constituents! And after all, it does come down to a vote after all, and when that time comes, he still falls back on his principles and votes no…!
It's my opinion, that it would be an injustice if Paul did NOT try and get some of their money back into their district. That would be a failure to represent.
I will NOT vote for any candidate, for any job, that does not support Israel. End of story.
Whatever conservative candidate wins in 2012, he'll inherit such a fiscal mess that even God himself would shrink from it in horror. A scalpel will not suffice to excise the cancer that has spread over this country. We will need a chainsaw and lots of commitment from every single patriot.
Next week this "all important" straw poll vote will have zero input in the 2 year process that we are about to embark which is selecting the individual who will be our choice to steer our Ship of State back to America.
Paul is unelectable. He loads bills, he believes will pass without his vote, with earmarks, then votes against
them, to prove to his ignoramus constituents he is fiscally responsible. Will Ron Paul eliminate earmarks?
I doubt it. Publicity stunt politician, that's what Paul is. He ran in 08, how'd that work out for him? He gave us
the obamaroid, his supporters freely admit they stayed home in 08. Like spoiled brat kids, they refused to
support the R ticket after their candidate was not selected by primary voters.
I always liked most of Pauls' policies, but he made me cringe every time I saw him on tv. Recently I realized
he reminds me of Dr Death. Sorry, he can't help how he looks, & we should not judge by looks, but to deny
it makes a difference if foolish. Many potential candidates need to step aside for disparate reasons. Some-
one needs to have the intestinal fortitude to tell them so, to their faces, since most of them live in a bubble.
Everyone may think Ron Paul is a bit loony but he has the mindset that's the closest to the founding fathers of anyone we've seen in a very long time.
I would be willing to take a chance with him.
Michele Bachmann and Jim Demint would have been two excellent candidates also. They have Tea Party principals.
I like how Progressives get to pick and chose who are the War Mongers.
WWI = 16,000,000 dead = Progressive Democrat President Woodrow Wilson.
WWII = 60,000,000 dead = Progressive Democrat President FDR.
Korean War = 2,500, 000 dead = Progressive Democrat President Truman
Vietnam War = 2,000,000 dead = Progressive Democrat President JFK
Gulf War = 100,000 dead = Progressive Republican President Bush.
Iraq War = 180,000 dead = Progressive Republican President Bush.
Do the math. Progressive Democrats are ahead in Wars and Death Tolls, beating out their Republican Progressive Brothers by a 2:1 ratio in Commander in Chiefs starting Wars and by 79,800,000 deaths. These are facts. Are you still sure about that pro-war/pro-confrontation stance. Of course you are. Facts mean nothing to Useful Progressive Idiots Worshiping at the Alter of the God State Church.
Mitt still had a fighting chance when he dropped out right before his CPAC speach that year. It took everyone by surprise, including Laura Ingraham who was introducing him.
I really like Ron Paul.
Everytime he comes out against the FED, his opponents paint him as a tin foil hat wearing lunatic. They have tried to discredit him for years, painting him as a nut, putting him in the same box as Dennis Kucchinich (sp) of Ohio..
I was just looking at the list several posts above. That is why I picked Thune.
How much would you take to vote again for Obama?
A jug of Ripple?
Isn't that the going rate for ACORN votes?
Shrug. One could as well say that 69% voted for "anybody but Paul". The whole CPAC story has just been an excuse for Paul-bashing. I can handle respectful disagreement with Paul's foreign-policy position, but Paul has been walking the limited-gov't walk for longer than some conservatives have been alive. A person who speaks disrespectfully of Paul and his supporters ("Paultards", etc.) has told me all he needs to about his political positions.
I think this was an obvious case of a split vote. Palin and Romney may have each drawn smaller numbers than Paul, but<i/> a better indicator would have been a direct comparison poll, one where you rank who you'd rather have 1, 2, 3. Many voters would prefer Romney and Palin over Paul, but as their personal preference leads them to one over the other, the vote was split. Paul may in all likelihood be the least popular on the ballot. Run head to head, Palin and Romney run individually against him would probably pull double digit leads. The fact of the matter is, two candidates similar on many foreign and domestic policies of course would lose against an opponent who was vastly different.
Turn off the Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter and widen your view on foreign policy and terrorism.
"Refuse to discuss Ron Paul." This is why you so-called conservatives with your establishment Republican koolaid machine are dwindling away. You refuse to consider a true conservative in terms of both domestic and foreign policy.
LOL, I thought it was a pack of cigarettes.
"it is not a leader or set of leaders but the American people that are going to restore this nation to greatness."
Truer words have never been spoken. The American people need to wake-up and understand what their votes are doing to this country. They need to be able to see through the phony TV campaign ads and the lies told by the "highly-partisan" MSM. We can no longer blame the lying elected crooks in DC. We must start blaming the people who keep putting them back in power!
If I was a conspiracy theorist, I would want to know if Huckabees Fox show was a form of pay-
off for his remaining in the race. The question is WHO was behind his staying the race. Did
McLame buy him off, directly? Was it Rupert, the magnificent Aussie? Was it Ayles? Find
out where the long smoldering feuds are buried, & you've got the picture. Hucks' show is OK.
It fills airtime on Sat & Sun, at least it's not re-runs of Friday Hanity, & Mr O's shows.
And what is wrong with the student vote? If you place all your faith in gray-haired old codgers who suck up to the establishment, you will never get real conservatives back in power. Here's a hint: people age and people eventually die.
right on…. and somebody who believes in the conspiracy that gwb caused 9/11, obviously not knowing about operation bojinka by the muslim jihadists…stupidity….. no right to be prez….
chainsaw??L O L
And so it begins again with the Paulbot swarm. He will never be elected after the MSM rips him to shreds as a kook truther, Bircher and isolationist. You can argue those points until you're hoarse, but that's how he'll be portrayed, and some of it is justifiable.
A vote for Paul will be nothing but a protest vote. Ask Ross Perot how effective those are — for Democrats.
I refuse to discuss Ron Paul.
Big Government continues to show its allegiance to the establishment Republican clan. Why in the world would you dismiss the student/young vote when these people are the future of politics? Big Government rails against big government but pays blind allegiance to the idea that we have to invade and occupy countries and keep 800 military bases in 130 countries and spend a trillion dollars a year on so-called defense; Big Government pushes this holy war mantra while doing its part to keep Americans paranoid of the "jihadists" so big government can continue its march to a Security State. The reality is that you're much more likely to die while traveling in a car or from heart disease or a myriad number of other causes than dying from terrorism. Your "Big Government" blog is nothing more than a Republican establishment advocacy group.
I've never watched his show, even when Father Jonathan was on, because of his shenanigans during the '08 primaries. To me Huckabee looks like even his handshake would be greasy.
They can't actually do numbers very well. There were 10k people there, 2400 voted and of that 33% voted Ron Paul. So 800 people supported Ron Paul out of 10k. That is so impressive. Its that sort of logic that saw him go down in flames in the presidential primaries.
Then I label thee a neocon. And neocons ain't gonna win.
TO ALL WHO SUPPORT RON PAUL: Did you vote at all in 08 Pres election? If not STFU! Did you vote
for McLame? If not STFU! I have come to believe you, as a group, may be so rabid & diabolical, that
you may have voted for the obamaroid, in order to reap the backlash. There are too many of you on this
site today & you are too aggressive. Way too many 'talking points'. You seem almost like professionals.
This is your Bi-Conditional: If US Taxpayer money is being used to support a law, then each Congressmen needs to secure PORK from that law regardless of how UNCONSTITUTIONAL and Morally Repugnant that law is and that Congressmen although receiving PORK BARREL money from that Bill can still maintain that they are against the law.
Let's use the Espionage and Sedition Acts of Progressive President Woody Mush Brain Wilson and the Separate But Equal Laws as our basis to invalidate the logic of your bi-conditional. These laws took tax payers money to police and prosecute Free Speech and to set up Separate But Equal Facilities and Services based on an individuals race. I think that we can all agree that these laws are Unconstitutional and Morally Repugnant. Now if you are against an Unconstitutional and immoral act you do not take money from the law. You stand on PRINCIPAL. You do not look to get a return on your investment on something that you believe is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. You stand 100% against it, having nothing to do with it. You do not participate at all in the legislation. Period the end. Participation equals silent commendation. (And yes, even though I love them our Founders did Compromise and Silently Commended Slavery in order to preserve the fragile Republic against England, putting off dealing with that Immoral and Unconstitutional Issue for another time and that compromise was paid in full with the reparations of 360,000 Union Soldiers Blood and Souls.) Class dismissed.
rollingstone. Pfft! "Down with the Establishment! Stick it to The Man! I hate the military/industrial complex!" Grow up, you stupid hippie. Apparently, the only lipstick wearing pig around here is you.
I still refuse to discuss Ron Paul.
It's amazing to watch the establishment types disparage Ron Paul supporters again and again. They'd rather that we "STFU" than have an honest discussion about Paul's stance on the issues. I'm assuming it's foreign policy that gets you people into such a tizzy. Whatever led you to believe that invading countries and spending a trillion dollars a year on global military hegemony is a small government conservative thing?
Given those choices, it DOES seem obvious, doesn't it?
Nothing at all wrong with the student vote. Just saying that the straw poll was far from representative of all the Cs out there. By the way, I really enjoyed Paul's speech — it was the first time i heard him speak and I was impressed. I am also open to hearing him out in some regarding ideas I disagree with, but when you say things like…“gray-haired old codgers who suck up to the establishment…” you sound a lot like leftist 60s radicals. In fact a lot of the rhetoric from the student supporters of Paul left me with the impression very similar to the insolent, whiners on the left.
Thank you for doing the # breakdown for us, Lagwolf.
Don't sweat it, Johnny. He doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of winning. At worst, we'll end up with Obama for 4 more years of lame-duckery.
Nice job. Resort to namecalling.
No, he has painted himself that way, for the reasons the article suggests. Or do you remember, in the 2008 debates, when he said that America needs to cut military spending because "this country hasn't been attacked by a foreign power in over 200 years"? His opponants don't have to "stigmatize" him. He does that all by himself.
The Neo Cons at CPAC demonstrate exactly why this party is in dire straights. When the Republicans come out for term limits, government downsizing and stop supporting a RINO Big Government people like John McCain then maybe their is some hope. Untill then?
Where does Mr. Paul stand on Haiti Relief? How far does 'non-intervention' go? I'm curious.
Nothing to spin. The CPAC straw poll is the kiss of death. Just ask Mitt Romney.
MY bi-conditional eh? LMFAO Interesting diatribe of copy and paste material…Very original.
Topically, yes Paul is putting earmarks in bills, like all the others. The premise on which he does so seems to escape you though. That is unless you feel it's justifiable for the Federal Government to illegally seize assets in the form of un-Constitutional taxes in the first place. Unfortunately for you, the world we live in is not a world of absolutes. Therefor, there is not one qualified person to hold public office under your logic. If you think Dr. Paul is wrong for trying to re-secure his districts tax money via earmarks, than you have a vague understanding of politics in general. Perhaps you should choose better sources to copy and past from, because your lack of an intelligible argument is obvious. Please, if you respond, stay on task. Let's talk about Dr. Ron Paul. And again I implore you to put Paul's voting record up against ANYONE…! Then we'll talk about what ever it is your trying to make a point of…!?
Keep it spinning
This is the same argument you hear from the left about the Tea Party. "Now these results aren't indicative of anything", "this was just a small "unscientific" poll", "this isn't REALLY how things are", "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain". You guys are funny.
Thank you! ;o)
I've read the Constitution. Aside from age, citizenship, and residency, I cannot find the requirement that defines 'ready yet'. I tend to think that a person 'just like me' is a far better representative in a Representative Democracy than some elite snob who is nothing like myself nor any average citizen.
None of the candidates now in the spotlight is the right one to carry the matter forward in 2012. Perhaps a General Patreus (provided he'd want the job) or another non-professional politician could be tapped. We need somebody who has the courage to stick to values without being religiously divisive or a bit too naive.
Why do facts get a thumbs down?
I would think that members of a site which is supposed to stand against Big Government would find Paul the most palatable of the candidates. I certainly do.
In fairness to Newt, a lot of us, myself included, were duped on global warming for quite a while. Live and learn.
Hmmm.
You just made a real valid point. I never quite looked at it like that. Thanks.
I don't think I ever told you, but i enjoy your blog.
You got it, Chile! Everyone appears to have taken their eyes off the ball. Way to stay focused!
Students tend to have little experience paying taxes or working for a living.
Look we have many fractions of conservatives right now, but we need to stand together to first defeat the leftists. Then reform the Republican Party from within and embrace and debate viewpoints so we can slowly reform the country and cut programs, budgets and entire departments.
For the people that snipe at Ron Paul, relax, he has a great understanding of the constitution and a great record. Sure you may not agree on some foreign policy but I think he is a reasonable man that understands you can't do everything overnight. And personally I think we should review our bases around the world and start consolidating, moving troops home and cut spending on wasteful projects. Don't discount the young conservatives, we need them and its refreshing to see so many passionate about the country.
Yup…NONE OF THE ABOVE.
For the Libertarians, not all of us conservatives agree on everything. But i think most people agree about small government, cut spending and cutting departments. We need to work together to roll things back, we cannot simply end the fed then everything works out. Let’s first address the entitlements, spending and departments. Hold there the politician’s feet to the fire, because we are awake and fired up. Also, not everyone that has concerns on terrorism and foreign policy is a Neocon.
I don't know who i want for president yet, I think it’s hard to tell right now. I would like to see Ron Paul in charge of the Fed and Mitt as some kind of cabinet position. Tom Colburn, Mike Pence, Paul Ryan and Jim Demint are solid guys but we need someone with business knowledge, leadership, electability and honor.
Right you are, Ralph.
It's just my opinion.
Mrs. Palin doesn't strike me as someone who can explain why she believes what she believes and why it is better than the lefty alternative.
There is no way possible I will ever vote Ron Paul, and as to him telling the truth, it is the truth as he sees it, but not the truth in reality.
Devastating analysis from someone looking for sanity (in himself?)
It is absolutely hilarious that people think the leftist media will rip into Paul, brand him a "truther" hence rendering him unelectable. Sure, how does Mitt 'magic mormon underwear' Romney appeal to the media? But the attacks directed towards Romney (or indeed Paul) will be NOTHING compared to that which will be directed towards Sarah 'caribou barbie' Palin. The bottom line, is the MSM will attack every GOP candidate. Its time we stop legitimizing their efforts to set the rules for the debate, get the best candidate we have against Obama and push him. If Paul does indeed mobilize a huge portion of the youth vote and the independent vote, the GOP would push him if they had any sense.
And conservatives should understand that Paul's foreign policy is indeed the traditional conservative policy. Conservatives were elected to end WW2, to end the Korean War, to end the Vietnam War. Its just in the last 10 years that "conservatives" have adopted Democrat foreign policy and have put so much stock in it that it hurts for them to admit the possibility that they were wrong and so they will never go back to their traditional foreign policy.
Look, I admire Romney, he's a great guy, but he's not really conservative. He's got much more in common than Obama. Palin will be the end of the GOP. Among the current lot, Paul is the best candidate to face Obama, especially if he can get his audit the Fed bill to pass the senate.
Oh. Why thanks.
That moment sticks out in my mind, not just for the nature of the comment itself, but because I talked about it with a Paul supporter not long after that. And he said that that was correct, and I said, "What, so what was Pearl Harbor?" And he replied, "Hawaii wasn't a state then, so technically they didn't attack the United States." Um, okay.
A logical person would say students are the future of the party. You can't be conservative and support a global empire its just not possible.
Psycology is interesting, eh?
It is sometimes amusing to watch people twist things, and rationalize them into whatever they want to use them for. Our side can sometimes rationalize, and parse words, slicker than Bill Clinton when giving a deposition.
Does to me, but not to trolls or those who are spoon fed their opinion by the media. Heaven forbid we consider a highly motivated, grass roots AMERICAN citizen/private small business owner willing to make patriotic sacrifices for their country. They can deep their spit and polish politicians….I'll take a red blooded American any day.
I read this quote years ago……."Blue blood only appears to have relivance when red blood runs thin".
What do you mean by "support Israel"? are you aware of any of the side effects US sponsorship of Israel has? Do you think all that money the US gives to Israel doesn't come with strings attached? Israel would be much better off without the US "help" so many think it desperately needs. The USA would be better off too, and that really is what should be the primary concern of any US citizen.
You must be logged in to post a comment.