Posted on 08/13/2011 5:58:58 PM PDT by LibertarianInExile
“While we certainly aren’t liked by the powers that be, and they try and marginalize us, this straw [oll is pretty meaningless. Will check back in after the Iowa Caucus and see where we are. It is still WAY WAY WAY too early.”
Sure. August the year before the convention is a bit premature to declare victory. But I think it’s a good sign. The Ames Straw Poll winner typically wins the caucus. And I’d rather have the Tea Party be driving the agenda than the candidates’ misstatements or scandals.
Used to be that way, but the voters have to show proof of Iowa residence these days. But campaign organization is still important, and this poll typically reflects the caucus results.
"When it is primary election time with delegates at stake is when the game really begins. The South Carolina primary will be the first bell weather indicator."
Sorry, but the Iowa and Nevada Caucuses, and New Hampshire primary, select delegates and they come first as they will set the agenda. They're not nothing events because a candidate you dislike looks more likely to win them. Calling South Carolina a "bell weather indicator" is akin to saying Romney saying the Massachusetts primary is crucial to the nomination. It's spin designed to distract from previous unfavorable showings.
The USSR did not have the means to pay for their stockpile of weapons. Reagan was able to win the Cold War by bankrupting them.
You can’t do that with Iran because of the oil. There will always be nations wanting to do business for its natural resources whether there are sanctions or nay.
What you do though is through your intelligence agencies (CIA, etc) in ccoperation with other Western Nations and Israel, gather intelligence on the size and location of the plants, then strategically take them out, either internally through spies/espianoge or externally through air-strikes.
Iran’s possession of the nuke = an invitation to WW3. Trying to compare the situation to the Cold War is illogical. The Soviets were athiestic communists, they did not see the rationale in obliterating the world since it would not have resulted in the expansion of communism.
However, the Iranian government is led under the guise of radical-Islamo fascism. They don’t care if they die in the process. By destroying the world, they think they bring about the end of the world and all of the Islamic promises BS. They have NO rationale. Letting them get a nuke would be disastrous. It must be stopped at all costs.
Paul has a history of dominating straw polls, in actual primaries he fails pretty hard. Today 2nd place showing is almost certainly going to be the high water mark of his campaign - and everyone knows it.
I am no Paulbot
Well, you do call yourself a LibertarianInExile, so it's kinda hard not to suspect you have some paulbot in ya ;)
The Tea Party/grass roots’ turnout was overwhelming. That has got to scare the hell out of our RNC and MSM overlords.
Eh, Pat Robertson won the Iowa Straw Poll 1987 - and did so convincingly. People said that meant the social, religious conservatives were going to have a huge impact on the campaign. George H.W. Bush went on to win the nomination and Pat Robertson was largely a non factor. I wouldn't read too much into the results of the Iowa Straw Poll.
Pawlenty came in 3rd and they are clamoring for him to drop out of the race. The media is nuts.
I’ve never heard Ron Paul’s name at any Tea Party function other than he is a nutty loonytune candidate. The only thing he hass in common with the Tea Party is he may like chamomile tea. Calling him a Tea Party candidate is an outright lie and a distortion ther media is trying to use.
“Iran’s possession of the nuke = an invitation to WW3. Trying to compare the situation to the Cold War is illogical. The Soviets were athiestic communists, they did not see the rationale in obliterating the world since it would not have resulted in the expansion of communism.”
I disagree. I think both had/have an interest in expansion and dislike of the United States as interfering in their internal affairs early on in the regimes at issue. And I don’t think that the irreligious nature of Communism stopped the Russians (and Chinese, and Vietnamese, and Koreans) from killing far more than any other regime in the name of spreading their ‘faith,’ such as it is. And I don’t see how Reagan’s good fortune in finding the right button to push in ending the Cold War in any way affects the question I ask you: having had the USSR at our mercy, would you have extorted or nuked them into submission to prevent a future where Communists had the bomb and presented a threat to the freedom of the U.S. and the world?
Maybe you won’t answer that (again). So I’ll make the question more immediate; leaving aside Soviet Russia, do you view a now-nuclear North Korea as a similar threat? Are the Norks worthy of an air strike as you suggest? They have the nukes, and from what I have seen of their populace, a far more cultish devotion to their state and its aims than most Iranians.
One more issue I take with your response is that an air or other strategic strike isn’t preventing Iranians from getting nukes at all costs, but simply postponing it until they hide their nukes more effectively, when we’d have to do it all over again. If it seemed certain that Iran would get the bomb, and we did not have the strategic knowledge necessary for an air strike or assets for any other sort of in-country limited strike, would you support a ground invasion which really would prevent Iranians from getting nukes?
The Robertson victory was a pretty important reason that the GOP became at least outwardly socially conservative party and H.W. didn’t talk like a Weicker his whole term. I think it was a pretty seminal event for the GOP. Dismiss that at peril of dismissing the party’s most solid base.
Paul’s libertarian origins are not somehow evidence of all his followers’ politics, and my handle isn’t a good means to connect us. The people who hate Paul the most are the most hard-core Libertarians. And probably the most well-known self-identified libertarian, Neal Boortz, is pretty vocally anti-Paul.
No, most of the folks I know that support Paul do so because they are not libertarian but are populist and anti-globalist. That sounds pretty Tea Party to me, contrary to Blue Highway’s comments. I like Paul personally, because nutty or not, I know he’ll say what he thinks and do what he says he’ll do, and he seems to be a good person. I don’t trust a lot of folks in the race on the GOP side, I don’t know a lot of them really are good people, and while I might still conceivably vote for an @$$hole who’s on my side, I won’t vote for someone I don’t trust again. Maybe Bachmann. Maybe Cain. Certainly NOT Perry or Romney. I might not like everything about Paul, or Bachmann, or Cain, but I would rather have a vote I can trust will mean something, as opposed to a vote I’m gambling on being the lesser of two evils that doesn’t indicate my political will because of the candidate’s ambiguity. I’ve done that for too many times to count, it’s gotten no results for limited government, and I won’t do it again.
It’s also funny that you’d say about Paul that second place in the straw poll is his high water mark because his support is thin but eager to show up for straw polls—but no one seems to be saying that about Bachmann or any other candidate today. Paul wins a straw poll? Must be a fix, he bussed in supporters. But if he doesn’t? Evidently his competition somehow magically stormed the gates with broad support from every strata of society. /sarc
Here’s my analysis of why the RINOs, CINOs and LINOs are in a real tizzy here at FR, HA and MM:
1. In each year that the AMES straw poll was held during a viable Republican run for the presidency - the Republican winner for POTUS came from the top three.
2. In each year that the AMES straw poll was held during a non-viable Republican run for the presidency - the Republican loser for POTUS came from below the top three. McCain last time around is the latest example.
I can’t possible be the only one who knows this - RINOS, CINOs and LINOs are privy to the same info as I.
This year the office of POTUS is the Republican Party’s to lose. I.e., this year is a very viable year for a win.
The top three this time around are:
Bachmann
Paul
Pawlenty
Individually they all have a shot. Should Bachmann and Paul as the Tea Party candidates compromise and join together - it’s over. Even Palin would not be able to rock that boat.
I’m not a genius...I’m just pointing out the real fear and angst of the RINOs, CINOs and LINOs. That’s all really.
=8-)
Unfortunately the Bachmann and Paul campaigns can’t afford the carpet bagging mouthpieces in which the Romney and Perry campaigns can.
“Should Bachmann and Paul as the Tea Party candidates compromise and join together - it’s over. Even Palin would not be able to rock that boat.”
There are a lot of people here that would claim if they aligned, if that happened, we’d see a third party arise in the middle. But that’s not true. We’d just see a viable second party for the first time in years (led by Bachmann and Paul).
It’ll be interesting to see how much juice is poured into Perry and maybe Pawlenty now. The money bunch are flailing to select a winner early to anoint as they have in the past. I hope they can’t settle on a candidate to purchase for a while yet.
Meanwhile, I’ll laugh at every Romney/Palin/Perry candidacy floated. She is NOT getting in to be VP again, and neither man will be second fiddle to her.
I thought Romney was a write in as well?
Romeny and/or Perry couldn’t be trusted to carry Palin’s water even. She is in a different league completely from thosr RINOs
You get more donation money when you win, place or show. Buchanan sure did in the ‘96 campaign—win a little and the money comes rolling in. I bet Bachmann will be a lot more dangerous with that money.
Only question is what happens to Paul’s fundraising now. He lost by only 192 votes, not a huge margin. Could provide incentive for a lot of money to be invested in his campaign, too, to try to win the caucus. Or it could mean a lot of folks who want a conservative—any conservative—to win shift from him to her. Dunno.
We certainly live in interesting times!
Why are you ruling out Pawlenty, Santorum or Cain?
How is this possible the State run media has been telling us how the Tea Party is waning and has been downgraded?!
Okay, well, we'll see how he does. I don't think he will amass many delegates or be a real factor in the 2012 primary race. Feel free to revisit this debate once the primaries are done, but I bet you'll find I was clearly correct.
The Robertson victory was a pretty important reason that the GOP became at least outwardly socially conservative party and H.W. didn’t talk like a Weicker his whole term. I think it was a pretty seminal event for the GOP. Dismiss that at peril of dismissing the party’s most solid base.
I don't dismiss social conservatives, I am largely one myself. My point was only that Pat Robertson pretty well decisively won that 1987 straw poll and it didn't translate through the rest of the campaign.
No, most of the folks I know that support Paul do so because they are not libertarian but are populist and anti-globalist. That sounds pretty Tea Party to me,
Sorry, I don't buy this attempt to make Ron Paul into some sort of Tea Party godfather. He's not, and that is not where the bulk of his support comes from. When did Tea Party become populist anti-globalist? Economic conservatives? Yes. Populist anti-globalist? I don't think so.
I won’t vote for someone I don’t trust again.
Meh, you'd be a fool to really trust any politician. You can maybe trust them in so far as you get a good idea of where they are coming from, but even the best of politicians usually hedge the truth, exaggerate for effect when necessary, tend to conceal the parts of their agenda that aren't popular, etc.
If you want your vote to count in this country you have two choices, Republican or Democrat. Our winner take all system is not set up for coalition government or 3rd party's. Sure, a 3rd party can be a reservoir of protest votes, but they don't really accomplish much. One day one of the 2 major party's will fall again, but it will be extremely quickly replaced by a new party which will become the 2nd leg of our 2 party system.
and my handle isn’t a good means to connect us.
I was joking hence the smiley ;) Though opening a post with "I'm not a paulbot" from a poster calling himself LibertarianInExile might make some suspicous....(again, kidding, kidding).
Nope, he was on the ballot but claims he wasn't actively campaigning for votes. Perry was a pure write-in.
Honestly, I think Romney's team wanted Paul to win. Romney knew he couldn't win this time around and a Paul win would result in the media dismissing the entire event.
Spot on there...the establishment is going to pump either Pawlenty, Perry and possibly Romney. They’ll try very hard.
Which begs another question:
What exactly is Palin really up to?
(I think she knows whats about to happen as well...)
=8-)
Which brings up the question of why anybody pays any attention to any "straw poll".
A commentator on FOX News brought up that point today. The straw poll is nothing more than a gimmick publicity stunt where candidates pay to bus in supporters.
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.