MD Straw Poll Results - Ron Paul Wins

MD GOP ^ | 09/05/2007 | MD GOP

[Hurricane Bruiser]

ANNAPOLIS— After eleven days of presidential straw poll ballots cast at the Maryland Republican Party’s State Fair booth, Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) was announced last night as the winner.

The Maryland Republican Party’s first-ever presidential straw poll at the State Fair resulted in nearly 1,000 Marylanders casting a vote for their favorite Republican candidate for president.

[CJ Wolf]

Iraq wasn’t self defense. Initially it was a proactive action to enforce UN Resolutions. Now it’s nothing like the original mission.

[bcsco]

I guess that I am a Defiler Of Subthreads then. Probably not the worst thing I've been called on the RP threads. LOL.

No, and I've been called worse myself. Something to laugh about together :)

[maica]

I’ve concluded that for all the noise about earmarks and the Bridge To Nowhere (and the Iowa Rainforest) we had last year that few people at FR actually pay any attention to the facts.

^^^^^^

Sadly, I have to agree with you. Yesterday and today, Rush was musing about his misgivings re Fred Thompson using the venue of the Jay Leno show to announce his candidacy. Rush feels that it lowers the respect for the offiec of the Presidency towards pop culture. I think Rush may not have wanted to say it out loud, but I bet he is worried, as am I, that this next election with its large fields on both sides, and extremely early start, and the one-sided media will degenerate into an American Idol type contest.

Not how we should be electing the most powerful person in the world.

[pacelvi]

“Can’t really answer that one. I’d hope, like Madison did, he’d ask Congress for a declaration of war.”

But no declaration was ever made. So Paul would be against that war?

[George W. Bush]

In all honesty, I've been on most Ron Paul threads here on FR.

Well, you didn't prove it by posting on them. Sorry, you're not in the big leagues as a Paul-hater. Not trying to impugn your credentials or anything but I don't think you could find many RP supporters who put you in that category.

What I'm calling for is a moratorium. You say you have a candidate who'll satisfy conservative values, fine. Prove it! Meanwhile I'll ask my fellow conservatives to hold obnoxious comment. But you'll have to redefine yourselves! You're NOT conservatives; you're libertarians. Identify, be honest, and we just might respond. Otherwise, forget it.

You can ask them. They won't pay attention to you. That would spoil their little trolling hobby. Any more than an RP supporter paid attention when I was trying to get him to tone down on a Fred thread and let them have their opening day in peace. So they'll just ignore you, like they ignore everyone else.

Personally, I am not a Libertarian, have never been, never will be. I don't like their default pro-abortion position, their open-borders position, their completely unfettered free-trade policy, their position advocating legalizing even the worst narcotics. I don'd agree with that. Ron Paul would lose me as a supporter if he agreed with them on that. Now, of course there are a few Libertarians supporting Ron Paul who might take issue with my characterization of the LP but that's just my position. I am a Republican and a conservative. And if you think that somehow that excludes a strong position favoring liberty and libertarian values, I commend the Ronald Reagan's well-known defense of libertarian Republicans to you. He certainly grasped the fundamental conservative values of libertarian small-government Republicans. Like me. Like Ron Paul.

Of course, you're free to try to win without us. But you might recall the 2000 race and just how many votes you want to discard in key states because they just aren't "pure" enough for you. Me, I don't pretend to be the official litmus-test guy for my candidate and for the eventual GOP nominee.

[pacelvi]

This is what the war was for. It was for our National interest. Only disingenious people argue otherwise.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in “material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations” and urged the President “to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations” (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President “to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677”;

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it “supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),” that Iraq’s repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and “constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,” and that Congress, “supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688”;

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to “work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge” posed by Iraq and to “work for the necessary resolutions,” while also making clear that “the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable”;

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the “Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq”.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to—

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. —

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. — Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. — Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

[George W. Bush]

Yesterday and today, Rush was musing about his misgivings re Fred Thompson using the venue of the Jay Leno show to announce his candidacy. Rush feels that it lowers the respect for the offiec of the Presidency towards pop culture.

Personally, I'd prefer Fred have a nice brief home-state announcement along with his ad and then an appearance on Leno and other shows.

But then, Ron Paul has already broken all the pop culture sterotypes by first announcing with a simple press release and a five sentence (or so) plain-jane webpage saying he'd accept donations. Then he went on Bill Maher, The Daily Show, and the Colbert Report.

So since I'm living in a glass house, I won't throw rocks at Fred. LOL. I really have to admire my own integrity on this point.

Beyond that, Fred is trying to run a break-the-mold campaign. In political terms, he has to run as much an outsider campaign and against the GOP's business-as-usual. Even if we win in Iraq (however we define winning this week), that didn't help Bush v1.0 to win against Xlinton. In fact, having a tidy conclusion to GW I probably helped Xlinton by neutralizing the national security and foreign policy issues involved.

[bcsco]

Personally, I am not a Libertarian, have never been, never will be. I don't like their default pro-abortion position, their open-borders position, their completely unfettered free-trade policy, their position advocating legalizing even the worst narcotics. I don'd agree with that. Ron Paul would lose me as a supporter if he agreed with them on that. Now, of course there are a few Libertarians supporting Ron Paul who might take issue with my characterization of the LP but that's just my position. I am a Republican and a conservative. And if you think that somehow that excludes a strong position favoring liberty and libertarian values, I commend the Ronald Reagan's well-known defense of libertarian Republicans to you. He certainly grasped the fundamental conservative values of libertarian small-government Republicans. Like me. Like Ron Paul.

Let me post this from the book: "Reagan In His Own Name"; a quote from page #479: "Possibly Vietnam was the wrong war, in the wrong place a the wrong time. But when 50,000 Young Americans make the ultimate sacrifice to defend the people of a small defenseless country against the Godless tyrrany [sic] of communism that is not an act of "moral" poverty. It is in truth an act a collective act of moral courage.

It is time we recognized that the veterans of that war fought as bravely & effectively as any American fighting men ever fought in any war and did so with one hand tied behind their backs by O their own govt. It is time we told them that never again will we allow the immorality of asking young men to fight & die in a war our govt. is afraid to let them win."

Let me ask you this: Do you honestly believe (forget all the rhetoric of whether Congress voted for war or not) Ronald Reagan would be happy with the anti-war rhetoric coming from both the anti-war left and the Ron Paul camps today? Oh, and don't try to qualify the rhetoric from the Ron Paul camps as not anti-war. It is.

IMHO, this is EXACTLY where you Ron Paul defenders subvert yourselves. You use Ronald Reagan but misunderstand him. He may have made use of a libertarian such as Ron Paul, or whoever, but he was a true conservative. If you are a true conservative, then I believe you need to requalify your beliefs and come to an understanding how they align with libertarianism. Because, believe me, once all is said and done, should Ron Paul ascend to the Presidency, libertarianism will rule the day should Congress be amenable. And I don't believe you will want to take that chance.

[maica]

You may say you read it here first - you may not even remember - LOL! - I think Fred Thompson is going to sink like John McCain. I have no quarrel with his stated positions or with his supporters. I just think that he will not appeal quite as well when he gets in unscripted situations. What I have heard from him so far when it has been ad lib, has not been inspiring.

Perhaps I am prejudiced by remembering so vividly how he was crippled and rendered speechless by John Glenn, who was the minority chief on the comittee Fred chaired, when they were investigating Clinton shenanigans.

[bcsco]

Let me be perfectly clear. When you or Ron Paul, or anyone, associates with anyone who harbors the idea that the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the War on Terror whatever, is misguided if only because of a failure by Congress to declare war you are aligning yourselves with this:

Chuck Schumer Addresses Troops in Anbar: You Failed.

Quotes: " Let me be clear. The violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al-Qaeda said to these tribes, "We have to fight al-Qaeda ourselves."

"It wasn't that the surge brought peace here, it was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here and that was because there was no one else there protecting."

This is from Chuck Schumer. This might as well have been form Ron Paul. You want to quote Reagan? Stuff it!

[EDINVA]

Someone’s grasping at straws .... you can tell this is a fraud because there aren’t 1000 Republicans in Maryland.

ok, so that’s an (only slight) exaggeation, but what were the controls on the voting? did people have to show that they were registered Republicans in the state? or was it more like an internet poll where people can vote as many times as they want?

[bcsco]

ok, so that’s an (only slight) exaggeation, but what were the controls on the voting? did people have to show that they were registered Republicans in the state? or was it more like an internet poll where people can vote as many times as they want?

It's been posted on this thread that the polls were open to anyone, regardless of party affiliation.

[NYC GOP Chick]

That also explains the shrimp earmark! How cool is that?!

[NYC GOP Chick]

They are all in favor of limited government until it limits what they want government to do.

Exactly! It's just hard for the Paulestinians to accept that their heartthrob is nothing more than just another hypocritical, pork-grabbing congresscritter. Not exactly a man of great principle, is he?

[NYC GOP Chick]

What about all the other earmarks? If he truly supported a system that eliminated earmarks, he wouldn’t use them himself. Face it, he’s just another hack politician who spouts a good line.

[EDINVA]

I had to try 3X to open the link, then saw that. Also that Team Paul covered the fair for 11 days.

[NYC GOP Chick]

My comment: Just because Alaska does not connect directly by road to the lower 48, doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t get its share of highway funding.

Fine. But what about the fact that Alaska gets FAR more than what any reasonable person would consider "its fair share"? I recently read that Alaska gets back something like $1.87 in federal funds for every $1.00 they send to the feds.

Sounds like other states have to do with less so that Ted Stevens and Don Young can compete to be the "Sheets" Byrd of Alaska.

Btw, I remember watching the Senate proceedings farce of the Clinton impeachment and Stevens sat behind Trent "Vacant" Lott, who was on TV quite a bit due to his position as Senate Majority Leader. I was truly grossed out whenever I wound up having to watch Stevens pick his nose on national TV. And he wasn't even subtle about it.

[ejonesie22]

Way, like Ron Paul is the man, ya like know?

[George W. Bush]

It's just hard for the Paulestinians to accept that their heartthrob is nothing more than just another hypocritical, pork-grabbing congresscritter.

Not at all since he is not grabbing any pork.

OTOH, people like you who constantly lie about his record, make false charges you can never prove...

Frankly, it says a lot more about your lack of character than it ever could about Ron Paul.

[bcsco]

I had to try 3X to open the link, then saw that. Also that Team Paul covered the fair for 11 days.

What we have here is a continuation of RP supporters trying to build up their candidate's significance by presenting straw polls that have little significance, and are built up by nebulous, nay improper means. They have an active grass-roots effort that brings a small number of supporters to every straw poll event; albeit a significant number compared to other candidates who realistically understand the poll's insignificance.

Then, they spam the results, and make the results known online, implying Ron Paul is doing better than he really is.

It's nothing magic, really. Just a bunch of wannabees who want to change the World to their thinking. Pitiful.