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.

[George W. Bush]

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:

Not at all. Ron Paul supported and voted for the war in Afghanistan, against the Taliban who shielded Osama and who protected his training camps. RP did want a formal declaration of war there as he always does, partly to avoid these never-to-win police-action wars of the post-WW II era. He also introduced Marque & Reprisal legislation which would have been used to authorize some of the outfits like Blackwater to go after Bin Laden directly and reward them for taking him out.

The war on Iraq is a separate matter from Afghanistan/Waziristan.

[bcsco]

Not at all since he is not grabbing any pork.

Oh? Then why vote for a pork package for his district, knowing the committee will pass it, then voting against it once out of committee, again knowing it will pass the full House?

That seems like 'grabbing any pork' to me. Hmmmm?

[NYC GOP Chick]

It could also mean that the Dems are having fun screwing around with GOP polls, much like many here would do to the Dems (by voting for Kucinich in Dems polls) if given the chance.

[George W. Bush]

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.

One assumes the old lawyer/pol/actor knows he'd better deliver his lines smoothly and memorably. This isn't my concern with Fred. And if he's not ready after this much prep time and teasing, he'd better not make a misstep. But I don't think he will. He's a pretty cautious guy and that will serve him well.

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.

That was a long time ago. And while he was minority counsel, Howard Baker was actually calling most of the shots there. It was at least as much politics as it was a legal proceeding, just as our impeachment of the Bent One was.

Of course, I'm required to assure you that Ron Paul will be the nominee and FDT, try as he might, is just competing in the hope of becoming Dr. Paul's running mate.

[George W. Bush]

Then why vote for a pork package for his district, knowing the committee will pass it, then voting against it once out of committee, again knowing it will pass the full House?

Name and identify this pork Ron Paul has gotten and when he voted for it.

Put up or shut up. Not that that ever silences that Paul-haters and their FUD. A complete lack of pork in RP's record won't ever do.

We can find other porky candidates and we can name the pork and their votes, their obvious vote-trading with other congresscritters in both parties (this is how you get porky earmarks passed!) but you won't find it Ron Paul's record. He is still the most anti-pork member of Congress and deserves his unparalleled record of staunch opposition to all kinds of pork and the high regard he has with anti-tax groups. Only here at FR does a pack of complete loons and Paul-haters repeat these libels against him endlessly.

[NYC GOP Chick]

He should like be on the cover of Tiger Beat, shouldn't he?

[NYC GOP Chick]

What have I said about him that is false? That he claims to not want to spend taxpayer money (except when absolutely necessary), but is in there with the rest of them when it comes to grabbing for earmarks?

[George W. Bush]

It could also mean that the Dems are having fun screwing around with GOP polls, much like many here would do to the Dems (by voting for Kucinich in Dems polls) if given the chance.

DailyKos has run a poll the last few days of the Dim candidates and including Ron Paul (noting they would have to register Republican to vote for him in the primary).

Ron Paul currently at 60% support (441 of 732 votes cast). Edwards is second with 15%.

But I suspect that is low participation for Kos polls. And I do know that one of the big RP blogs mentioned that particular webpoll with a link so many Friends Of Ron found out about it.

You might take the position that this is the Kos way of trying to convince us that RP is our best nominee. I doubt it.

I tend to think that the KOSsacks know, just like any real FReeper knows, that online polls are completely and utterly worthless. I get a big kick out of these pouty bloggers and whiny GOP writers who complain that RP supporters are just "ruining" these online polls. Huh? As though they ever meant anything to begin with! It was FreeRepublic itself that permanently undermined their credibility entirely. It was a Good Thing to do and we were right to do it persistently in our early years.

[bcsco]

Not at all. Ron Paul supported and voted for the war in Afghanistan, against the Taliban who shielded Osama and who protected his training camps. RP did want a formal declaration of war there as he always does, partly to avoid these never-to-win police-action wars of the post-WW II era.

Ron Paul supported and voted for the war in Afghanistan...why? If he insists on a formal declaration of war, why?

RP did want a formal declaration of war there as he always does...

See above. Why? If he voted for the conflict in Afghanistan without a formal declaration, then why does he have to have the formal declaration elsewhere? And why do you Paul supporters (and he, BTW) have to make it a cornerstone of his candidacy?And if the formal declaration is so important, then why wasn't it important enough for his vote on Afghanistan?

You're telling me he voted for the Afghan war without a formal declaration, yet holds out for a formal declaration elsewhere. This makes no sense. Nor does it make sense that he'd vote for earmarks because he knows the committee will ultimately pass them, then vote against them on the final vote, all because he's against earmarks. None of this makes sense, unless, that is, one understands that Ron Paul is a manipulative fraud.

You stated to me, up front, that you are a conservative who believes Ron Paul is the best candidate. If you are a true conservative, and believe the BEST man should be the bearer of the GOP banner, then kindly explain how Ron Paul fits that description; in terms that aren't disingenuous or lamentable.

[marsh_of_mists]

bcsco: If one is going to present an image as being against earmarks, or his supporters are going to use that as a campaign tool, then one should be against them 100%.

If you're talking about image, I'll give you that. It would be better for his image because people hate the idea of earmarks anyway, as shown by how Paul opponents criticize him about it. However, it is not actually inconsistant with his stated political philosophy, as one can see when one looks into how earmarks and appropriations actually work and the fact the Paul fights and votes against those bills in the first place.

Heck, we all know that when they come out at least some of them will/may be for his district. And if they are, he's then voting against his district's best interests (in your eyes) is he not?

He'd say he's making the best of a bad situation. Ideally, the money wouldn't have been taken from the taxpayers in the first place. But it has been and as long as the money is going to be wasted somewhere anyway, some might as well go back to his district. Or his consistuents' taxes are simply funding other peoples' pork.

dirtboy: Last I noticed, we are running a deficit. So there is no surplus to be spent. Any earmark goes against the deficit.

None of the money is going to go to end the deficit, as much as we'd like it to. Congress doesn't have money to fight the deficit because it passes these spending appropriations bills. As long as it's willing to pass such bills, that's what the money is going to be spent on. If Paul didn't allow his earmarks to go through, someone else would, given the climate.

NYC GOP Chick: If he’s really so against spending taxpayer money on useless crap, he should stand on his principles and refuse to participate in the money-grab of earmarks. Maybe even convince other members of Congress to do the same, and also work on reducing the overall amount available for earmarks.

You inadvertantly hit on it. That's exactly what he does. As long as the money's their and Congress is willing to pass these pork-laden bills that it what is going to happen. Not participating in earmarks may be a good symbolic gesture, but it's not going to actually save on spending.

All of you can read Ron Paul's own words about it here in this June 18th article and let him speak for himself. I think I've said all I can say to convince you.

[George W. Bush]

What have I said about him that is false? That he claims to not want to spend taxpayer money (except when absolutely necessary), but is in there with the rest of them when it comes to grabbing for earmarks?

Your posts lead people to believe Ron Paul has actually received earmarks. He hasn't. Go find some that have passed and been funded. Go find these $400 million he's received. Heck, just go find $4 million in earmarks for RP's district.

Earmarks don't pass unless a bunch of House members are all asking for basically the same thing and the appropriate committee gives in to them. Or if powerful ranking members in the majority and minority party cut slices off to reward their own districts (see Murtha, Pelosi, Hoyer and an unnamed Republican candidate on how this is done on the Defense Bill).

When you won't trade votes, when you vote against all the pork, you just don't get earmarks.

And since you're charging that Ron Paul has brought pork home to his district with these earmarks, it's up to you to prove it. Because the conservative press/media and all the rest of the media can't seem to find those successful earmarks. In fact, you wouldn't even know Ron Paul had submitted them if he didn't release them to the public. Obama and Clinton still haven't released theirs, last I heard. And don't be fooled by the Dim claims that all pork and earmarks are now "transparent". It's another lie and the Dims are bigger porkers than they claimed the GOP to be in '06. However, the Dims aren't the only porkers in the House. The GOP porkers aren't as honest as Ron Paul and they, unlike him, do trade votes for porky earmarks. And unlike you, I can and have proved what I'm saying on earlier threads.

Put up or shut up. I have evidence of other porking by Republicans in collusion with the Dims. But you can't produce anything remotely comparable against Ron Paul.

[George W. Bush]

Ron Paul supported and voted for the war in Afghanistan...why? If he insists on a formal declaration of war, why?

Because Ron Paul is practical enough he knows the Founders never believed that the Perfect should be an enemy of the Good. He did compromise his constitutional principle, all the while trying to get Congress to do the right thing. For one thing, all these Dims couldn't be pulling this for-it-before-I-was-against-it crap and the Bush-lied-our-soldiers-died nonsense quite so easily. Bush took the easier road to war and the entire GOP has paid and will continue to pay a price for such lack of courage and principle.

An official state of war would also have hampered the libmedia in undermining the war, identifying publicly our intel means and methods, the existence of the secret interrogation centers, etc. During an official and declared war, treason has a very serious meaning, unlike a police action.

Nor does it make sense that he'd vote for earmarks because he knows the committee will ultimately pass them, then vote against them on the final vote, all because he's against earmarks.

Produce the evidence that Ron Paul has received any of these earmarks in his district. There are plenty of articles giving details and dollar amounts for other congresscritters. But none for Ron Paul.

You're saying you know he's received these porky earmarks. Fine. Prove it.

...kindly explain how Ron Paul fits that description; in terms that aren't disingenuous or lamentable.

You've received enough keystrokes for a person who hurls charges of porky earmarks and can produce no proof. As if your own bias isn't clear enough from the above phrase.

[bcsco]

Me: Heck, we all know that when they come out at least some of them will/may be for his district. And if they are, he's then voting against his district's best interests (in your eyes) is he not?

You: He'd say he's making the best of a bad situation. Ideally, the money wouldn't have been taken from the taxpayers in the first place. But it has been and as long as the money is going to be wasted somewhere anyway, some might as well go back to his district. Or his consistuents' taxes are simply funding other peoples' pork.

So, if some of those earmarks do make it to his district, "he's making the best of a bad situation" but he's still against earmarks. I see.

You: "and as long as the money is going to be wasted somewhere anyway, some might as well go back to his district.

But, if Ron Paul and others were true to their beliefs against earmarks, and opposed them up front instead of just voting for them 'because they're going to committee anyway and we have no control over that', would it truly have to be wasted somewhere?

If you don't see the duplicity in this, God help you. If you do, and support it, God can't help you.

[jmeagan]

****Seems to me that Bush ran on a “humble” foreign policy and not policing the world after our disgust with Clinton’s adventures abroad.******

Yes, The Muslims in Kosovo have ethnicly cleased the country and now want to become a separate country. Serbia is threatening to send an army into the country to stop that possible action.

[bcsco]

As if your own bias isn't clear enough from the above phrase.

I've never couched nor disclaimed my bias. NEVER. I'm against Ron Paul. Always have been, always will be.

Produce the evidence that Ron Paul has received any of these earmarks in his district.

No need to. The simple fact that he adds earmarks for his district because they're going to committee where he knows they'll pass, then votes against them on the floor, is duplicitous. Somewhere, sometime an earmark for his district will pass if it hasn't already (I'm not taking you at your word that one already hasn't after all this time).

And Ron Paul is being duplicitous, disingenuous, a liar, when he (or his supporters) claims to be against earmarks.

[SmoothTalker]

More proof that strawpolls mean nothing.

[NYC GOP Chick]

Your posts lead people to believe Ron Paul has actually received earmarks. He hasn't. Go find some that have passed and been funded. Go find these $400 million he's received. Heck, just go find $4 million in earmarks for RP's district.

So what? The FACT that he puts in for them belies his hypocrisy.

The reality that he doesn't get many of them isn't a reflection of his putative principles.

[Theodore R.]

Still, if Ron Paul were to get the GOP nomination, it would be hilarious seeing GWB, McCain, Mel Martinez, and the others endorsing HRC!!!!

[Road Warrior ‘04]

Someone is eventually going to set fire to those straw polls and they'll burn like....straw!

I put up a sign next to one of Paul's that have appeared on the boulevards in Central Florida. You know: "Ron Paul For President". Next to one of them, I put up a sign that read:

"RON PAUL BLAMED AMERICA FOR 9-11!

WOULD YOU REALLY VOTE FOR HIM?"

[bcsco]

Still, if Ron Paul were to get the GOP nomination, it would be hilarious seeing GWB, McCain, Mel Martinez, and the others endorsing HRC!!!!

I frankly doubt that happening. I'd expect them to hold party unity and support Paul. But I'd also expect a major party fracture where the real GOP support from conservatives moves to some third party candidate, even if written in.

I know mine would...without any hope of return. If you think RP has any chance at GOP unity, think again.