Ron Paul Wins Presidential Straw Poll at CPAC

ludahai said:

No danger of him winning... if he wins the nomination, may as well give Obama a second term...

Click to expand...

Here I was all ready to like your post when I read this portion of it, and was stopped in my tracks.

There is no reason except, with the possibly threat of death for anyone who is not mentally challenged to vote for Obama for anything above trash truck driver. He might be able to accomplish that job without royally screwing it up. But then I forgot for a moment about underground sewer worker. That might work.

Hellzapoppin on the Right. It's about time. This ain't your father's GOP no more baby. Democrats are going to miss George Bush.

Paul has lit the "brushfires of freedom" within the Republican party. While he *might not be a president in his lifetime, he is a success by forcing the GOP to actually realize their own stated principles should mean something. The mainstream republicans only pay lip service to the constitution. They don't actually respect it with their actions. I'll make a generalization here (which always has it's few exceptions): The mainstream republicans inspire the old gray-haired old men and their subservient wives who all march to the tune of god and country regardless of the atrocities they commit to the constitution; meanwhile Ron Paul inspires the youth who still read and understand the constitution. The GOP is learning, or had better learn, from this. Otherwise they will have no future.

But I wouldn't count the guy out in the next election. He has my vote and monetary contribution. I couldn't say the same for any other possible candidate. It is refreshing to hear a politician speak about his ideals, then to research that person's voting record to find he has never wavered. I can't think of hardly any politicians that can lay claim to such honesty.

Councilman said:

I would vote for him if got the nomination, but it's too early for me to decide.

I was hoping to see a true Statesman emerge in the run up to the primary elections, and so far I don't see anyone who is a stand out.

It's clear it has to be someone who could beat Obama or who ever gets the Democrat nomination in the case Obama keeps falling in the polls because he hasn't yet learned that pretending he's our dictator against the majority of American opinions is no way to win re-election.

Click to expand...

30% of anything is still a failing result. Last time around McCain placed 5th and won the nomination. The conservatives simply use this as an indicator of which way the nation is leaning.....and with McCain it proved to be the perfect reverse barometer. The Conservatives would have been far better off leaving McCain at the bottom of the totem pole. The nation ended up with two progressives running with both picked by the media instead of being properly vetted by THE PEOPLE, both candidates were purchased under the authorization of a false bill of ladening....as both parties were carrying a load of Manure instead of the advertised and intellectually honest statesmen they were presented as being. One was actually a progressive appeasement artist, the other Marxist, who attempted to do as promised, fundamentally change the United States of America by pushing one unconstitutional program upon THE PEOPLE after another, from the Stimulus Bill and Government take over off private Banks and Corporations to the Unconstitutional Health Care Legislation.

Councilman said:

Here I was all ready to like your post when I read this portion of it, and was stopped in my tracks.

There is no reason except, with the possibly threat of death for anyone who is not mentally challenged to vote for Obama for anything above trash truck driver. He might be able to accomplish that job without royally screwing it up. But then I forgot for a moment about underground sewer worker. That might work.

Click to expand...

I didn't say I would vote for Obama. I would vote third party. However, nominating Paul or Palin would result in a second Obama term and there is nothing you can say that would convince me otherwise...

Please don't forget that everyone thought Clinton's days were numbered after 1994, and then the GOP royally screwed up by nominating Dole in 1996...

Helvidius said:

Paul has a small, energized, and surprisingly young fan base(including myself). He won't win the Republican nomination. Fox News wouldn't allow it anyway.

Click to expand...

Fox News wouldn't allow it? I always found it odd that Paul fans thought certain agencies or small groups were preventing this man from becoming President or the Republican nominee. Liberals liked him for his foreign policy rhetoric, and absolutely despised (but politely ignored) his domestic policy rhetoric. Independent/Moderate voters wanted someone in a compromise position. Conservatives (sure, go ahead and question their credentials on being "conservative", but don't be idiotic and suggest that somehow "real" conservatives make up the majority of the conservative lexicon in America at present) adored his fiscal policies but censured his foreign policy aims. The first in brief measure said they may vote for him, but that would not be a reality because any Democratic candidate would seemingly be preferable to Paul, because *shock* being an anti-war candidate was all the buzz for Democrats, and one may as well keep Democratic party welfare state policies. The second either could not live with domestic policies such as his, or could not invision foreign policy positions so clear cut and different as his. The last loved his domestic policies, but were completely horrified by his ideology surrounding the War on Terror. Lastly, who on earth really believes young people truly carry the day on getting a politician elected? They can show up in large numbers, but their large numbers are as fickle as the latest fashion and number as many as fans of an indie rock band (well, the "cool" and "enlightened" ones are counted in this, anyhow). They are there for you before you need them and then suddenly do not show up, nor are most of them even politically interested. Democrats had to learn that lesson the hard way in the late 1960s and 1970s. It would be a shame for Republicans to rely upon such a crowd.

I am sorry, Paul fans, but his positions did not satisfy a significant portion of voters. His positions were just too hot/cold for many groups. Don't blame Fox News for American political reality.

ludahai said:

I didn't say I would vote for Obama. I would vote third party. However, nominating Paul or Palin would result in a second Obama term and there is nothing you can say that would convince me otherwise...

Please don't forget that everyone thought Clinton's days were numbered after 1994, and then the GOP royally screwed up by nominating Dole in 1996...

Click to expand...

Ron Paul should switch his party affiliation back to Libertarian and run. No...he wouldnt win...yes, Obama would be re-elected, but the republican party MIGHT finally see that their base is above all else fiscally conservative and are tired of republicrats.

donsutherland1 said:

It will be interesting to see if the public awareness translates into public support. I'm suggesting that it won't. His positions on the issues, not a lack of public awareness, will remain the overriding obstacle that I believe he won't be able to overcome.

Click to expand...

What position do you think is relevant? His positions on the economy are certainly popular among Republicans. The position on foreign policy is less popular, but even that has a strong base of support in the Republican Party, stronger than his share of the vote. Drug legalization does not have majority support, but it does have a very large amount of support in the Republican Party. His positions on abortion and gay marriage put him at a strong midway between liberal Republicans and conservative Republicans. Certainly most Republicans support strong fiscal discipline, one the defining aspects of Paul's philosophy.

So what exactly are you saying is undesirable?

Redress said:

When in doubt, blame the media. It's much easier and let's you play the victim card.

Click to expand...

I don't expect someone like you to understand or to even notice. Hell, anyone who is steadfastly opposed to Ron Paul almost certainly wouldn't. That is because you do not know when Ron Paul beat one of the anointed candidates in a poll so you cannot realize that the media are failing to even mention his support in the polls. You, for one, probably do not watch Fox News much so you would not have noticed how even when he was second in the Nevada caucuses that as they were announcing the latest results and showing pictures of the candidate they skipped right on by Paul. No doubt when a debate aired and they cut out much of Paul's comments when it re-aired it was not something you had any knowledge about. These are things I saw first hand and knew what they had done. It was not a mistake as they did it over and over. What was crazy is that the most I heard them talking about Ron Paul was the day after the moneybombs (something that they would have to report on just to retain some credibility among the masses) and on the day of the Iowa caucuses, at which point all media attention would be of little significance.

The media may increasingly have their factional differences, but they are all still enmeshed in the establishment and state appartus. Any notion that they would tolerate someone whose ideas are so antithetical to theirs is overly optimistic.

ludahai said:

And what exactly has Ron Paul accomplished, anyway? Sorry, his pro-China/anti-Taiwan votes in the House mean I absolutely will NEVER consider voting for him at any time... it is in the same company as Barbara Lee in my book...

Click to expand...

:roll: Paul only has anti-intervention votes. He does not favor one foreign government over another.

Fiddytree said:

Fox News wouldn't allow it? I always found it odd that Paul fans thought certain agencies or small groups were preventing this man from becoming President or the Republican nominee. Liberals liked him for his foreign policy rhetoric, and absolutely despised (but politely ignored) his domestic policy rhetoric. Independent/Moderate voters wanted someone in a compromise position. Conservatives (sure, go ahead and question their credentials on being "conservative", but don't be idiotic and suggest that somehow "real" conservatives make up the majority of the conservative lexicon in America at present) adored his fiscal policies but censured his foreign policy aims. The first in brief measure said they may vote for him, but that would not be a reality because any Democratic candidate would seemingly be preferable to Paul, because *shock* being an anti-war candidate was all the buzz for Democrats, and one may as well keep Democratic party welfare state policies. The second either could not live with domestic policies such as his, or could not invision foreign policy positions so clear cut and different as his. The last loved his domestic policies, but were completely horrified by his ideology surrounding the War on Terror. Lastly, who on earth really believes young people truly carry the day on getting a politician elected? They can show up in large numbers, but their large numbers are as fickle as the latest fashion and number as many as fans of an indie rock band (well, the "cool" and "enlightened" ones are counted in this, anyhow). They are there for you before you need them and then suddenly do not show up, nor are most of them even politically interested. Democrats had to learn that lesson the hard way in the late 1960s and 1970s. It would be a shame for Republicans to rely upon such a crowd.

I am sorry, Paul fans, but his positions did not satisfy a significant portion of voters. His positions were just too hot/cold for many groups. Don't blame Fox News for American political reality.

Click to expand...

Even it were his positions that were to blame, not really, you have to ask yourself how people arrive at these positions. Do you think people form their political views in a vacuum? They are influenced by the source of information that is most dominant. All the different political parties represent are the views of factions within the establishment and the media treats these establishment positions as though they are the mainstream positions. People naturally tends towards those positions because it is all they have been conditioned to accept.

buck said:

No matter how many times the guy wins the CPAC poll, he has absolutely zero chance of winning the general election or even the reppublican nomination. I agree with Donald Trump in this.

Click to expand...

Umm... hang on a second... how many elections has Ron Paul won?? 10 different elections? 15?
How about donald trump?? He's failed in business what 5 times? Never been elected to anything??

I'm not trash talking trump here... he's a capitalist with more lives then the average cat, but in terms of politics, he's really just a newcomer.

Good to see true conservatives supporting a smart candidate like Ron Paul two years in a row. Also glad to see them shy away from the Queen of Tweets. Sad to see they didn't give more support to Pawlenty or Christie.

VanceMack said:

Ron Paul should switch his party affiliation back to Libertarian and run. No...he wouldnt win...yes, Obama would be re-elected, but the republican party MIGHT finally see that their base is above all else fiscally conservative and are tired of republicrats.

Click to expand...

I disagree... I think the rest of the republican party should change affiliation to the 'neo-con' party... I'm sure the same could be done on the democrat side with different wording... and well... I dunno, Kucinich is the only REAL democrat I could think of that would be in the same vein as Ron Paul.

Not all that long ago there was a poll that showed that if it was Ron Paul against Obama that it would be essentially a 50-50 coin toss as to the winner.... he's got a better chance then Palin.

BmanMcfly said:

Not all that long ago there was a poll that showed that if it was Ron Paul against Obama that it would be essentially a 50-50 coin toss as to the winner.... he's got a better chance then Palin.

Click to expand...

Palin has turned herself into an opportunistic joke. She's great a rallies and tossing red meat the uneducated members, but not so good at providing leadership and laying out a roadmap to fixing the nation. Paul, Romney and several others are much more qualified and proven leaders.

Councilman said:

I would vote for him if got the nomination, but it's too early for me to decide.

I was hoping to see a true Statesman emerge in the run up to the primary elections, and so far I don't see anyone who is a stand out.

It's clear it has to be someone who could beat Obama or who ever gets the Democrat nomination in the case Obama keeps falling in the polls because he hasn't yet learned that pretending he's our dictator against the majority of American opinions is no way to win re-election.

Click to expand...

At least the Republican Party knows what a Conservative looks like. They are halfway there. Now all they have to do is support a Conservative in 2012. Tall order? We'll find out.

If you want another 4 years of Obama (and financial ruin) just elect Rube Paul to the Republican nomination.......... Nuff said

Interesting to see Christie finally pop up on a National poll, if somewhat partisan-limited.

I have several times posted that Romney would likely win and draft Christie as VP. (the latter perhaps a favorite in 2016)
But there's something unexciting about Romney.

In any case, here's the graphic on the CPAC #1/#2 choices.



A dismal showing for Palin, Pawlenty, Huckabee.

Helvidius said:

Paul has a small, energized, and surprisingly young fan base(including myself). He won't win the Republican nomination. Fox News wouldn't allow it anyway.

Click to expand...

It's one thing FOX purposely ommiting him from the running in Nevada with a finisher behind him in his place, but could they really pull that off in the bigger picture?

Albert Di Salvo said:

Hellzapoppin on the Right. It's about time. This ain't your father's GOP no more baby. Democrats are going to miss George Bush.

Click to expand...

So Paul has won the straw poll again. Didn't help him before. What do you think is earth shattering this time?

Illumination said:

Paul has lit the "brushfires of freedom" within the Republican party. While he *might not be a president in his lifetime, he is a success by forcing the GOP to actually realize their own stated principles should mean something. The mainstream republicans only pay lip service to the constitution. They don't actually respect it with their actions. I'll make a generalization here (which always has it's few exceptions): The mainstream republicans inspire the old gray-haired old men and their subservient wives who all march to the tune of god and country regardless of the atrocities they commit to the constitution; meanwhile Ron Paul inspires the youth who still read and understand the constitution. The GOP is learning, or had better learn, from this. Otherwise they will have no future.

But I wouldn't count the guy out in the next election. He has my vote and monetary contribution. I couldn't say the same for any other possible candidate. It is refreshing to hear a politician speak about his ideals, then to research that person's voting record to find he has never wavered. I can't think of hardly any politicians that can lay claim to such honesty.

Click to expand...

That's all good and fine but you can't win the election being too conservative or too liberal. You have to move to the middle a little to win. Obama did it and so have many other presidential candidates.

EnigmaO01 said:

That's all good and fine but you can't win the election being too conservative or too liberal. You have to move to the middle a little to win. Obama did it and so have many other presidential candidates.

Click to expand...

Dr. Paul has demonstrated that, while he may not have much of a shot at being president, his ideology is the most accepted at CPAC, and that says quite a bit. It says that, according to CPAC itself, Dr. Paul has become the mainstream of the Conservative movement and Palin and Beck have become the lunatics, which is quite true. I also have the feeling that the Neocons and other statists on the right are going to start calling CPAC a subversive Liberal anti-American organization now. :mrgreen:

Demon of Light said:

:roll: Paul only has anti-intervention votes. He does not favor one foreign government over another.

Click to expand...

None of the votes in question regard directly interfering in the Taiwan/China conflict, but I wouldn't expect someone as pro-Beiping as you to understand the difference...

BmanMcfly said:

Umm... hang on a second... how many elections has Ron Paul won?? 10 different elections? 15?
How about donald trump?? He's failed in business what 5 times? Never been elected to anything??

I'm not trash talking trump here... he's a capitalist with more lives then the average cat, but in terms of politics, he's really just a newcomer.

Click to expand...

I never endorsed Trump. I don't even think he'll run. Regarless of how many elections Trump or Paul has won, Paul has zero chance of winning the nomination.

Based on the 2008 elections and how rabid his supporters were, I think most Paul supporters have a problem with reality. So, you may as well start getting used to it now.

buck said:

Based on the 2008 elections and how rabid his supporters were, I think most Paul supporters have a problem with reality.

Click to expand...

Yep because apparently your the high authority on reality. :roll:

chevydriver1123 said:

Yep because apparently your the high authority on reality. :roll:

Click to expand...

I was addicted to the Ron Paul supporter's websites during the run-up to the 2008 elections. Some hilarious stuff went on there. Even though pretty much everyone knew he was not going to win, they never saw the upcoming loss for Paul. They were convinced that all the polls were wrong, and he was going to win. It was effing hilarious.

Good stuff. Ron Paul is one conservative I can support.

StillBallin75 said:

I'm neither a conservative nor libertarian and I think a lot of Paul's ideas are really "out there," but I rather like him. At least he's got integrity, is honest about his beliefs and hasn't yet compromised on his principles, and isn't a complete asshole like several other keynote speakers at CPAC.

Click to expand...

He has ideas... not just rhetoric.. and that's why I like him