Ron Paul wins CPAC Straw Poll

[WeWantMore]

Re: Ron Paul wins CPAC Straw Poll

You realize language like this basic red flag in any argument that there are probably plenty of reasons not to like the man. Beware anyone who starts there argument with "It goes without saying...", cause it usually doesn't.

I just stuck that in there so that I didn't look like some doe-eyed fan boy. I certainly don't hold the guy up as perfect, but I do think a lot of people fail to give his ideas a fair shake.

[St. Clown]

Re: Ron Paul wins CPAC Straw Poll

A lot of his positions get distorted in this way. He doesn't need to "accept" or "reject" gay marriage. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to ban it or to pass the DoMA, so he's against those things.
Like him or no (and there are reasons not to) all his positions are firmly based in the Constitution.

I'm really on the fence with Ron Paul for this very reason. His supporters like to state that he's going to govern by the Constitution and then offer stated opinions from that perspective. That's fine, I like that he would look to the Constitution for guidance rather than to figure out how it inhibits or prohibits a political agenda. What I don't like is that his personal opinions are never discussed.

Take for instance DOMA & gay marriage. Stating that he will take no action due to a lack of Federal authority is one thing. Going beyond that, what are his personal opinions on the matter?

The reason I would like to know such things is that there will be at least one occasion during a president's term where the Constitution and subsequent legal interpretations will be vague on an issue. How would he act then? In what direction would he take the Federal government?

[Kepler]

Re: Ron Paul wins CPAC Straw Poll

Weirdly, it's a great result for both parties. Not bad for the country, either.

[Patman]

Re: Ron Paul wins CPAC Straw Poll

Like him or no (and there are reasons not to) all his positions are firmly based in the Constitution.

You mean like his support for pro-life positions? What kind of calls are there in the constitution that might affect the people he courted in the 80s and 90s? Are his votes for pork found within the dicta of the constitution?

[BoomGoestheDynamite]

Re: Ron Paul wins CPAC Straw Poll

I just stuck that in there so that I didn't look like some doe-eyed fan boy. I certainly don't hold the guy up as perfect, but I do think a lot of people fail to give his ideas a fair shake.

My apologies. I read that quickly and got the exact opposite meaning from the statement

[WeWantMore]

Re: Ron Paul wins CPAC Straw Poll

You mean like his support for pro-life positions? What kind of calls are there in the constitution that might affect the people he courted in the 80s and 90s? Are his votes for pork found within the dicta of the constitution?

He worked in a hospital and saw aborted, still breathing children tossed in a bucket in the corner. Understandably, this experience lead to his pro-life beliefs, however he thinks that the federal government should play no role in the matter either way. I believe that is in accordance with the Constitution.

As for the "people he courted" , I don't believe that argument. I'm sure he was connected to some nasty characters, I defy you to find me a politician who wasn't. However I think to paint him as a racist is taking the easy way out.

Please point out a pork project that he brought to his district that was unwarranted.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Ron Paul wins CPAC Straw Poll

so that I didn't look like some doe-eyed fan boy.

Doe-eyed fan boy, I don't know why but that absolutely cracked me up.

I keep picturing bambi holding up a copy of the constitution and citing economic theory.

[Patman]

Re: Ron Paul wins CPAC Straw Poll

He worked in a hospital and saw aborted, still breathing children tossed in a bucket in the corner. Understandably, this experience lead to his pro-life beliefs, however he thinks that the federal government should play no role in the matter either way. I believe that is in accordance with the Constitution.

Believes but doesn't act in accordance with the constitution. He would say the constitution states that there should be no say on the matter and hence a no vote

Please point out a pork project that he brought to his district that was unwarranted.

which leads me to this... that's also irrelevant. Its not in the constitution and he knows this. He takes a dishonest position of "but if we're going to do it anyways..." if we're going to do it anyways I'm going to get something out of it or I'm going to have it my way and then vote for it.

As for the "people he courted" , I don't believe that argument. I'm sure he was connected to some nasty characters, I defy you to find me a politician who wasn't. However I think to paint him as a racist is taking the easy way out.

And its also accurate. Is it the easy way out on philosophic questions... sure, but we're talking about opinion polls on the leader of the free world. I don't want somebody who is so conniving that he makes such deals with the scum of humanity. He has in the past, so what does that say in the future.

You can buy into the ideas of a man and not buy into the man himself. Ron Paul has many problems with hypocrisy and with his history as a fringe politician. Moreover, his followers have not moved far beyond the man as the movement into moving the idea. the problem is once they start moving the idea itself you run into the issue that the idea isn't well accepted and moreover rejected. The movement relies on the confidence that there are people out there who also agree with the Paul-idealized movement.

Want to agrue the ideas... go ahead. But you'll have to admit that Ron Paul has glaring problems which will prevent him from being the leader of the free world and they aren't small problems.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Ron Paul wins CPAC Straw Poll

You can buy into the ideas of a man and not buy into the man himself.

I think that's why I would have a problem voting for him. I like his stance on a lot of things but man, he comes off like a complete whackjob.

[WeWantMore]

Re: Ron Paul wins CPAC Straw Poll

Believes but doesn't act in accordance with the constitution. He would say the constitution states that there should be no say on the matter and hence a no vote

Maybe I'm a bit ignorant here, what are you referring to?

which leads me to this... that's also irrelevant. Its not in the constitution and he knows this. He takes a dishonest position of "but if we're going to do it anyways..." if we're going to do it anyways I'm going to get something out of it or I'm going to have it my way and then vote for it.

Fair enough, I agree his point is relatively weak here. I will say that I'd rather have 535 people in charge of the money, rather than 1 guy in the White House.

Want to agrue the ideas... go ahead. But you'll have to admit that Ron Paul has glaring problems which will prevent him from being the leader of the free world and they aren't small problems.

No way could he win an election to be leader of the free world. If he won 10% of the vote in an election hell would probably have already frozen over.

However, I think the views of libertarian minded people like Paul are marginalized for no reason at times - simply because they aren't part of the big two parties.
For instance, if you asked someone their positions on spending, troops overseas, size of government, drug policy they'd agree with the libertarian position on a sizable chunk of issues.

Hopefully Gary Johnson runs in 2012.

[Red Cloud]

Re: Ron Paul wins CPAC Straw Poll

I wasn't at CPAC this year (although I wanted to go - I've had a good time there in the past), but Ron Paul fans are notorious for their, ahem, zealotry when it comes to supporting Paul in straw polls and especially in meaningless internet polls. It never translated to success at the ballot box in 2008. It's simple. Ron Paul spoke at CPAC this year, drawing a lot of Paulians to the event in the first place. Shrewd move on Paul's part, since it practically guaranteed that he would stand out in the poll considering that the conservative mainstream hasn't coalesced behind any one candidate. The CPAC Straw Poll always carries some free press with it.

Paul's an interesting character who fascinated me long before he became the Dennis Kucinich of the GOP (big on rabid supporters, low on real national turnout). On one hand, I respect the guy for taking a hard stance on his beliefs, especially since they run in complete counter to everything most politicians on both sides of the aisle stand for these days. On the other hand, he's at the head of a political cult that makes Obama's from 2008 look semi-pedestrian, and I agree with Patman that his relatively active courting of the racist fringe is really unsettling.

[Red Cloud]

Re: Ron Paul wins CPAC Straw Poll

The last few months haven't shown much of a social con influence but they are lurking beneath the surface... and they will surface because they'll demand attention.

Yup - even though they'd be doing themselves a favor by keeping quiet, they aren't generally (as a movement) known for being overly shrewd politically.

The social-con is the 3rd rail right now especially when econ-con is such an incredibly winning position and for **** good reason. The "tea party" movement isn't really rooted in social conservatism which is why you saw the Massachusetts effect... nobody in Mass is going to rally to an evangelical's desire to bring Christ's will to a nation but they'll rally behind a cause when they feel that the economy and state of the nation is at stake.

This is what a lot of the liberal punditry doesn't get about the tea party movement. They continually lambaste them as "teabaggers" (insert 8th grade giggling), racists, homophobes, bigots, ignorant hicks, "astroturfing," the whole nine. They write entire articles asking what the movement is all about like it's some kind of jumbled mess (of course it's going to be semi-jumbled - it's a grassroots movement).

What we saw in Massachusetts, as you pointed out, Patman, was exactly why the tea party movement is finding success. The focus is on fiscally conservative candidates, with basically no social conservative underpinnings. That's not to say that there aren't a lot of social conservatives IN the tea party movement, but that's not the focus whatsoever. There are probably a lot of football fans in the movement, but you won't hear the pundits call it a pro-football thing.

IMO, even CPAC seemed to be on the whole non-religious bent. I really hope those types remain on the sidelines because there really is so much at stake beyond Christian moralism.

The Paul vote caused some to question whether the GOP was moving in a more libertarian direction. I think that's true, but the cause and effect are backwards. With social conservatives muted - the crowd booed a speaker who railed against GOProud's involvement in CPAC - the party is more open to social moderates and social libertarians, which is a good thing. If the party wants to be a big tent, that's the right away of going about it.

Oh, one other thing that bothers me about Paul - he's a 9/11 troofer. Disqualifies him for being taken seriously, in my view, even if the rest of what he says seems logical. I can't say for sure since I haven't seen his stand on it, but I wouldn't be shocked if he was a birfer too.

[rufus]

Re: Ron Paul wins CPAC Straw Poll

Its his whole background... he's been pandering to the White nationalists types since the the 1980s....

Isn't that basically the Tea-baggers?

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Ron Paul wins CPAC Straw Poll

Isn't that basically the Tea-baggers?

Ironic, isn't it?

[Rover]

Re: Ron Paul wins CPAC Straw Poll

While putting in the disclaimer that the 2012 nomination is eons away, the factional splits in the GOP are not. I'd expect Paul to do a lot better and have a lot more influence on the eventual GOP candidate than he did the last time around.

Last time you had three wings of the GOP, the military, social conservatives, and economic conservatives deciding the nominee. With everybody fighting to win over the social conservatives (even Romney - a major blunder for a guy who could have owned the economic wing) the nomination went by default to a guy who owned the military wing all to himself while the others divided the pot. Problem was, the other two factions wasn't happy with McCain.

What I can see Paul doing is adding a 4th faction, libertarians and somewhat loony ones at that. Dismiss his followers all you will, but they will generate headlines and have the advantage of the purity of their convictions, unlike others in the party who are against govt spending but are more than happy to accept pork barrel spending when it comes their way.

So it'll be interesting this go around. There is no military wing candidate. I don't even think there's a veteran running in the whole group which to my knowledge is unprecedented in GOP recent history (Romney, Gingrich, Palin, Huckleberry, Jindal, Pawlenty, etc). Romney you would think is the strongest if he can quickly dispatch Gingrich for the economic wing's support, but the problem is he's going to get destroyed over passing the Mass healthcare law, especially in a debate with Paul. Take him out of the equation and I don't know who the hell is favored. Could come down to whoever runs/survives between Palin and Huckleberry, both "true believers" to the cause....