Ron Paul wins CPAC Straw Poll

[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....

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Ron Paul wins CPAC Straw Poll

I totally agree that there are factions, and I'm very disappointed in that.
I like Ron Paul, and I definitely lean libertarian. That said, I would rather have a conservative in office than a liberal. Which is why I'm a little disappointed in the Tea Party, especially in Nevada, where they have decided to run an alternate candidate in general Senate race. That would hand the seat to Harry Reid in my opinion.

Mitch Daniels would be my 2012 candidate if I can't have a libertarian for what it's worth.

 

[ScottM]

Re: Ron Paul wins CPAC Straw Poll

I totally agree that there are factions, and I'm very disappointed in that.
I like Ron Paul, and I definitely lean libertarian. That said, I would rather have a conservative in office than a liberal. Which is why I'm a little disappointed in the Tea Party, especially in Nevada, where they have decided to run an alternate candidate in general Senate race. That would hand the seat to Harry Reid in my opinion.

Which is basically what happened in upstate New York. As much as the Tea Party set may galvanize the GOP in some quarters, it also has the potential to create chasms that the Dems can exploit, in spite of their own issues. Moreover, at the national level, the GOP will still face the specter of trying to attract independents, moderates, and others not on the fringe. "Outrage" only goes so far in this system if you intend on winning.

 

[Rover]

Re: Ron Paul wins CPAC Straw Poll

While I'm obviously rooting for them to fail, what the GOP needs to control is absolutists, and right now they're struggling with that. For example, take the Florida Senate race. Not only would Crist win that seat in a landslide, he'd have some real good credentials for a Presidential bid in a few years. Instead, apparently because he accepted stimulus funds for a rail project he's in a tough primary race with a guy who will most likely have more trouble winning the general election (the Dem candidate is weak, but if Crist looks like he's not going to get the nomination I'd expect them to try for a stronger candidate). This is the sort of contest the party doesn't need. However, in Nevada as you say, or even in Arizona with McCain a fringe candidate is going to use any time an officeholder did something in a bipartisan manner and exploit it.

To that end, the whole Scott Brown thing is being overplayed. Brown had no real primary to deal with, as it was a condensced election season, and he had the benefit of running against and absolutely clueless opponent who didn't campaign until the last week. In short, nobody really knew where he stood on issues. A guy like McCain for example isn't going to make that mistake facing a challenge from the right. What I'll be looking for is how much "bad blood" is there going to be if the established GOP candidate wins by attacking a true believer in the primaries, or if the insurgent wins, does the defeated moderate back the Dem instead (as in NY-24)?

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Ron Paul wins CPAC Straw Poll

Which is why I'm a little disappointed in the Tea Party, especially in Nevada, where they have decided to run an alternate candidate in general Senate race. That would hand the seat to Harry Reid in my opinion.

The tea party movement as a "party" is stupid when there are qualified fiscal conservatives running in the GOP primary, which there are in the case of Nevada.

Where GOP isn't running fiscal conservatives, that's when I think a third party run is in order. We saw this in upstate New York last November when the GOP establishment chose a fiscal left-of-center candidate to run in a congressional seat. The Conservative Party nominated a fiscal conservative, and he did well enough to force the Republican out of the race (who later showed her true colors and endorsed the Democrat) and almost won it himself on the third party line. It forces the GOP to understand that they aren't entitled to the votes of fiscal conservatives if they don't run fiscal conservatives.

On a separate, unimportant note, your comment was the one in the last six that I saw, because everyone else is on my ignore list. I'm sure that was an enlightened, thought-provoking conversation.

 

[Patman]

Re: Ron Paul wins CPAC Straw Poll

Isn't that basically the Tea-baggers?

that's blatantly the most dishonest thing you've ever posted and you know it. Let me guess, everything conservative is racist because there aren't enough black people around to give it their seal of approval? Where's the race element of the tea party movement?

Then again, you're repeating a known slur... I shouldn't expect honesty.

 

[Patman]

Re: Ron Paul wins CPAC Straw Poll

While I'm obviously rooting for them to fail, what the GOP needs to control is absolutists, and right now they're struggling with that. For example, take the Florida Senate race. Not only would Crist win that seat in a landslide, he'd have some real good credentials for a Presidential bid in a few years. Instead, apparently because he accepted stimulus funds for a rail project he's in a tough primary race with a guy who will most likely have more trouble winning the general election (the Dem candidate is weak, but if Crist looks like he's not going to get the nomination I'd expect them to try for a stronger candidate). This is the sort of contest the party doesn't need. However, in Nevada as you say, or even in Arizona with McCain a fringe candidate is going to use any time an officeholder did something in a bipartisan manner and exploit it.

To that end, the whole Scott Brown thing is being overplayed. Brown had no real primary to deal with, as it was a condensced election season, and he had the benefit of running against and absolutely clueless opponent who didn't campaign until the last week. In short, nobody really knew where he stood on issues. A guy like McCain for example isn't going to make that mistake facing a challenge from the right. What I'll be looking for is how much "bad blood" is there going to be if the established GOP candidate wins by attacking a true believer in the primaries, or if the insurgent wins, does the defeated moderate back the Dem instead (as in NY-24)?

Of course you believe this since you believe in your positions and as such there is a need for more "moderate" republicans to give you what you want.

Notice how I never call on democrats to elect and run more moderates... I don't because I don't expect them to do so and that its not my place to do that. Somehow we have to listen to democrats demonstrate what is and is not a proper republican.

Crist is an example of a "moderate" whom happens to agree with liberals with many non-social positions. How is it that the Dems always seem to like these social-cons anyhow? People like Crist bend over backward to show how smart and bipartisan they are. A "bipartisan" non-solution is just that... a non-solution... but it makes idiots feel better about themselves so at least they have that.

Oh, and lets recall NY-24 basically ran a liberal democrat in the Republican position... but since its a "republican" slot it gives Rover cover to call that person a republican and shift accordingly. I'm sorry, ideas and platforms get labels... the labels don't go searching for ideas and platforms. Pro-union liberalism doesn't become "conservative" and should hardly be a part of the "republican" party.

edit: Hell why not.

I'm asking for democrats to moderate and nominate real moderates... moderates as I see them and I shall call them. If the media and pundits can do then I can do it too. The partisan democrats need more people with moderate view points on fiscal sanity, constitutionalism, and personal responsibility. Ones that know we are a nation of laws and a nation of people whose individual rights trump the government's desire to solve society for the collective.

I bet it won't happen.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Ron Paul wins CPAC Straw Poll

Oh, and lets recall NY-24 basically ran a liberal democrat in the Republican position... but since its a "republican" slot it gives Rover cover to call that person a republican and shift accordingly. I'm sorry, ideas and platforms get labels... the labels don't go searching for ideas and platforms. Pro-union liberalism doesn't become "conservative" and should hardly be a part of the "republican" party.

It was NY-23 (my district).

Most people didn't get the lessons of NY-23, on both sides. Democrats smirked because they won a seat that has been Republican since the Civil War and they think it was thanks to the tea party movement. They're right, but not in the way they think.

The GOP, without a primary, selected a pro-abortion fiscal liberal, or at the very least, a pro-abortion fiscal left of center candidate. They thought she was the best candidate because she was an elected representative, where the other people running were mere citizens. They ignored the tea party movement, and paid the price. Lots of registered Republicans weren't interested in voting for her and preferred to support a third party candidate. She dropped out when she realized she was in third place and then, partially out of spite and partially because she is, as conservatives had been saying for weeks, closer to the Democrat, she endorsed the Democrat. When was the last time you saw a Republican candidate at any stage of an election drop out and endorse the OTHER party, especially after the GOP spent over $1 million on her campaign?

Unfortunately, some tea party advocates took the election to mean that they need to mount third party campaigns everywhere. In this situation, where there was no primary and the candidate was considered wholly unacceptable for good reason, there was a use for a 3rd party. In the case like Nevada, where there are multiple fiscal conservatives running in a GOP primary, there's NO reason for a third party.

 

[Patman]

Re: Ron Paul wins CPAC Straw Poll

It was NY-23 (my district).

Most people didn't get the lessons of NY-23, on both sides. Democrats smirked because they won a seat that has been Republican since the Civil War and they think it was thanks to the tea party movement. They're right, but not in the way they think.

The GOP, without a primary, selected a pro-abortion fiscal liberal, or at the very least, a pro-abortion fiscal left of center candidate. They thought she was the best candidate because she was an elected representative, where the other people running were mere citizens. They ignored the tea party movement, and paid the price. Lots of registered Republicans weren't interested in voting for her and preferred to support a third party candidate. She dropped out when she realized she was in third place and then, partially out of spite and partially because she is, as conservatives had been saying for weeks, closer to the Democrat, she endorsed the Democrat. When was the last time you saw a Republican candidate at any stage of an election drop out and endorse the OTHER party, especially after the GOP spent over $1 million on her campaign?

Unfortunately, some tea party advocates took the election to mean that they need to mount third party campaigns everywhere. In this situation, where there was no primary and the candidate was considered wholly unacceptable for good reason, there was a use for a 3rd party. In the case like Nevada, where there are multiple fiscal conservatives running in a GOP primary, there's NO reason for a third party.

enthusiasm is good... but you have to take a look around at times.... but i think that's a lot of frustration due to a feeling that things are slipping beyond your own grasp which is what the tea party folks feel. Things have gone off the rails and now they're finding that they have enough of an ability to exert influence. You don't want to get into a needless fragging cycle... though Scozzofava deserved it. How the hell do you nominate that in a staunch republican district.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Ron Paul wins CPAC Straw Poll

You don't want to get into a needless fragging cycle... though Scozzofava deserved it. How the hell do you nominate that in a staunch republican district.

Her best friend in the Assembly (also a loser) is also the chairwoman of the most powerful GOP county committee in the district. She pulled weight.

Both are apparently being primaried.

 

[Rover]

Re: Ron Paul wins CPAC Straw Poll

Of course you believe this since you believe in your positions and as such there is a need for more "moderate" republicans to give you what you want.

Notice how I never call on democrats to elect and run more moderates... I don't because I don't expect them to do so and that its not my place to do that. Somehow we have to listen to democrats demonstrate what is and is not a proper republican.

Crist is an example of a "moderate" whom happens to agree with liberals with many non-social positions. How is it that the Dems always seem to like these social-cons anyhow? People like Crist bend over backward to show how smart and bipartisan they are. A "bipartisan" non-solution is just that... a non-solution... but it makes idiots feel better about themselves so at least they have that.

Oh, and lets recall NY-24 basically ran a liberal democrat in the Republican position... but since its a "republican" slot it gives Rover cover to call that person a republican and shift accordingly. I'm sorry, ideas and platforms get labels... the labels don't go searching for ideas and platforms. Pro-union liberalism doesn't become "conservative" and should hardly be a part of the "republican" party.

edit: Hell why not.

I'm asking for democrats to moderate and nominate real moderates... moderates as I see them and I shall call them. If the media and pundits can do then I can do it too. The partisan democrats need more people with moderate view points on fiscal sanity, constitutionalism, and personal responsibility. Ones that know we are a nation of laws and a nation of people whose individual rights trump the government's desire to solve society for the collective.

I bet it won't happen.

A couple of points:

1) Fiscal conservitives in the GOP don't exist, and you're clinging to a long disregared myth if you think they do. Do you really think McConnell and The Boner if they become Senate Majority Leader and Speaker respectively are suddenly going to go on a deficit cutting spree? Do you also believe in Santa Claus? What you will get is a re-enactment of Bush era tax breaks for big GOP campaign contributors, financed by deficit spending.

2) I make no apologies for longing for GOP Senate representation that include such people as Dole, Rudman, Danforth, Warner, Chafee, etc - people who were traditional conservatives (as opposed to nut job cons that we have now) but would work with the other side and not reflexively try to block all legislation. Right now the current GOP is run by and stocked with idiots. Having Inhofe, Hatch, Coburn, DeMint, and Chambliss running the Senate is a disaster and far worse that what we have now, and maybe what we'd had in generations. Look no further than the current jobs bill, essentially a tax break for hiring. Despite its limited scope, you had two moderates (Snowe & Collins), one unknown (Brown) and two people retiring (Voinovich and Bond) voting for a bill that for all purposes encompasses alleged conservative principles. Why didn't more GOP'ers vote for it? Partisan idiots, pure and simple.