Posted on 03/03/2015 11:42:43 AM PST by LizHarrison
CPAC has become the “see and be seen” event for conservatives in new media. There is no debate about the fact that everyone – bloggers, media, internet radio talk show hosts, and everything in between – wants to take advantage of the opportunity to get close to all the conservative superstars at that conference. And the American Conservative Union (ACU) discovered this year how that can be a very bad thing.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
yeah, but they’re mostly Paul bots only - no support for any other Republican. That’s at CPAC at least. Nationally I think millineals are trending back more conservative than they’ve been in a while.
Got it... clear as crystal. No communication problem there.
I would accept your premise that the poll itself is meaningless if there were any other candidates who could assemble a group of constituents motivated enough to de-Paul the straw poll. C'mon... if it were so easy as to make the poll meaningless, you'd think someone would have done it by now.
I’m not particularly fond of either Paul - and less fond of their mind numbed drone-bots. But frankly, I have a far deeper concern that my words stand the test of time and logic than any affection - or disaffection - for any particular person. Great minds focus on ideas, small minds on personalities. I could really care less about personalities.
Other candidates don’t worry about assembling straw poll voters because they really don’t mean much of anything. Again, if the CPAC straw poll meant a thing, we’d have a Paul in the White House. Tell me again, when did that happen?
LOL! You’ve been hanging with that crowd too long.
Does not follow. The straw poll can be significant of a thing without picking the overall winner.
I think what it signifies is that there is a pretty big contingent of people out there in our country who are interested in returning conservatism to first principles... who are emphatically not interested in a party that amounts to "less liberal than the liberals." These people actively desire smaller government, greater federalism, more local control, more recognition and respect for constitutional liberties, lower taxes, and a less interventionist foreign policy. They believe that these things are consistent with the founders' vision for what our country should be, and that this vision proceeds from the inalienable, God-given rights that we all share.
The Republican establishment doesn't like Paul, but in rejecting all things Paul it throws a baby out with the bathwater. The Republican "Paul problem" would disappear in a New York minute if the party would just do one thing: demonstrate the slightest inclination to materially pursue the party platform. For years the party has paid only lip service to the platform, if it considers it at all.
If you think that nice campaign speech above has ANYTHING to do with the youth movement for Rand Paul, you're extremely naive.
Perhaps you're right... but the principles that I cited are part and parcel of the Paul message, whether it's true or just a bill of goods. The fact that people respond to it should have the party's attention, not its contempt.
Many first-principle conservatives out there would not make Paul their first choice. They were driven to Paul as the only option because nobody else was representing their core values.
What you are not realizing is the contempt the Paul bots have for most of the candidates who share your views. Yes, Rand shares some of them - but these are not limited government people I am talking about. They are Paul or nothing people, most are very liberal on social issues, naive on foreign affairs, and really want license, not liberty. My contempt is not for Rand or Ron so much as it is their supporters - the young bot supporters.
These people are NOT part of the movement you think they are, even if Rand does share a lot of the same principles. I know these people - it appears you do not.
And here's just a little bit more of the 'part and parcel of the Paul message' ....
Rand Paul Defends Obama Against Dick Cheney
Rand Paul's NYPD Shooting Blowback
Rand Paul Blames Politicians for Ferguson Tragedy
RAND PAUL: IT'S AMERICA'S FAULT
Rand Paul: Let’s face it, it’s going to be difficult to repeal ObamaCare at this point
Rand Paul Touts GOP Unity, Endorses Susan Collins 'Wholeheartedly' in Maine
Rand Paul Wants Bigger GOP: ‘You Go to a Republican Event and It’s All White People’
Rand Paul: Amnesty Legislation Could Pass This Year
Rand Paul seeks new allies among Romney 2012 team
McConnell: Rand Paul can 'count on me' for 2016
No thanks.
Actually no, I don't. It's a fair assessment on your part.
I'm not a candidate voter, I'm an issues voter, and would give consideration to any candidate who appeared to be serious about pursuing the agenda I previously mentioned.
On that basis I'm thinking Jeb Bush is not the answer; but then I'm unlikely to be excited about anyone the party establishment is likely to nominate, because they all look like John McCain to me.
Put together a Scott Walker/Paul Ryan ticket, and you've got my serious attention.
...the guy most in tuned with your view - from what I can tell - is Ted Cruz. Walker is not bad either. Ryan is way too establishment for my taste, and I think you and I are close philosophically.
I’m a candidate voter - in the sense that I’m interested in the candidate with the best ideas....which translates to issues to some degree, but transcend issues as well. Reagan was an idea guy - an idea of what America is and should be. That defined every “issue.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.