Posted on 02/12/2011 4:33:54 PM PST by Behind Liberal Lines
Ron Paul has pulled off a reapeat, winning the CPAC presidential straw poll once again with 30 percent of the vote.
Mitt Romney finished second with 23 percent ... Newt Gingrich at 5 percent; Tim Pawlenty, Michelle Bachmann and Mitch Daniels at 4 percent, Sarah Palin at 3 percent, and everybody else at 2 percent or less.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Oh well, whatever. I think Ron Paul’s domestic & economic policies are wonderful. I prefer strong national defense, with private military corporations to protect foreign investments. I also think forming military alliances with like countries (free market nations) is a good idea, and we can come to each others’ mutual defense to protect trade routes and pool defensive resources, if needed. Not sure if Paul would go for that, but he is in general as close as we’ve come to the Founding Fathers that I’ve seen. I really admire him, and his son, Rand. 4L
I’m beginning to wonder who the hell is represented in CPAC.
My guess is only fringe freaks - Ron Paul does have NO CHANCE of getting elected + he is a foreign policy idiot.
Romney’s time came and WENT. If he couldn’t beat a buffon like McLame, what the heck makes people think he can beat the slickster Obama? My guess is the establishment guys are pushing Romney.
What is even FREAKIER than Romney is “Jeb” Bush’s position in the rankings.
NO MORE BUSH NOT NOW NOT EVER!! COMPRENDE?
Everybody wants REAL change from an outsider.
Trump will win the nomination.
Let's attempt to put our little time on this earth into some perspective, as it has to do with the history of liberty, and whether it is too late for a revival of the ideas of liberty in America.
In all of the history of civilization, forms of people/government relationships had come and gone. For most of time, ordinary people were in some kind of servitude to others, in a government over people relationship. Sometimes the tyranny was by one person, as in master/slave, and sometimes it was king over subjects. Sometimes it was some other form.
Let's imagine our recent ancestors as having crossed an ocean in crude boats to live in a wilderness using equally crude tools to carve out a place to dwell. All of us are subjects of a King in a foreign land.
We might have dreamed of freedom, of living with hope and opportunity and plenty, but what would have been our prospects?
In all the preceding thousands of years, no one had devised a system of government which allowed for that to happen. Might we have thought it was "too late" for us?
Nowhere had there been an example of anything like what happened in 1776 and 1787 in America.
Suddenly, a people had expressed in a written document (the Declaration of Independence) ideas so revolutionary that a totally unique form of government came into being. A people declared their rights were derived from a Creator, one of whose manifestations was through the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God, as Supreme Judge of the World, and overseer of the affairs of men (Divine Providence).
Through a period of revolution they had asserted their inalienable rights to be free, and within 11 years, they perfected their quest for freedom in a form of self-government by their written Constitution which turned upside-down all previous people/government forms. It left individuals free, and it limited the powers of those they elected to serve them.
Their idea, unique and special, made it a Creator over People over Government relationship, with government being the servant of the People, and all of it relying on Creator-endowed rights, liberty, and laws to protect that liberty.
Too late now? Only if we forget the Founders' repeated acknowledgement of the role of Divine Providence during America's years between 1620 and 1787, even beyond that.
After all, we do not have to come up with the ideas, as they did. All we have to do is rediscover them and assert our Creator-endowed rights to select people who will reflect the Founders' principles in their decisions in government.
I think you meant, "big government conservatives." Thank God that there is a return to Constitutional, small government conservatism after our last so-called conservative president.
As far as Sarah is concerned, I'm sorry that she's so far behind in the polls. This is one instance where the MSM was successful in ruining an otherwise great person. I don't think her support of McCain over Hayworth helped her much either.
Although I don't think Paul could win, but why would he not get your vote before somebody like Bush, McCain, Romney, or Obama? Is he too conservative for you?
Straw polls are worthless. Isn’t Paul’s winning this one evidence enough of that?
You know nothing about Glassner and his prior work with Palin. Get a clue.
RON PAUL beats MITTSTER! a big loss for MITTSTER and the INDY GOV may cut into MITTSTER establishment support.
Or in other words, back to the kitchen, woman!
He’s too libertarian for me.
Define “too libertarian” for you. Does that mean that he’s too much like the founding fathers for you?
Must be real proud of THAT accomplishment ....(/sarc)
Yeah! I see the Ron Paul freak show driving their old hippy RVs around here all the time. Got ‘em painted up with the “Ron Paul REVOLUTION” stuff and the whole thing. They remind me of that dumpster diving “Rainbow” bunch that has a camp out up here every few years.
This fudgePAC you’re talking about, is this the one that everyone attended. I saw a lot of top politicians fail miserably, and 1, Ron Paul, do well. Mitt Romney did almost as well as he did 2 years ago, 3 years ago, 4 years ago. He won all those years. Mitt’s doing worse, but still better than everyone else.
SarahPAC was a “fudgePAC” sponsor. Everyone (not Huck or Barbour?) showed their CPAC love, and they all flopped in one way or another. Except Ron Paul.
Was the goal to go to CPAC, make a speech, get on the ballot
and get no votes? Because that’s what everyone did. Except Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. They did the same stuff as everyone else, showed up, spoke, tried to get people to vote for them, and succeeded.
These are serious, real straw polls. The polling rules haven’t changed, they aren’t biased in favor of Ron Paul. There is also RSLC (I think, Southern something). Palin hasn’t done anything at any of these things. And I’m not saying she needs to do anything at all to show that she can do something to get people to work for her, show up for her, vote for her. I would think life could be better for Palin if she did try to kick some ass, as opposed to 3%. But the thinking is that we’d rather see her back out yet again for one reason or another, and we can then just attack CPAC, who had Reagan there over 10 times, because Palin can’t get her campaign focused enough to win or to show well.
I don’t want to see Palin at 3. I’m quite happy with Ron Paul getting 1st. But I’m looking at that 3% and thinking, not good. Hey, maybe if she was as famous as Gary Johnson, she could pull 6%. No, people just need to know more about Palin, that’s it. Palin is a star, and the words coming out of her mouth could be interpreted in such a way that makes it seem like she’s agreeing with me, and “first female president is republican” would be huge, but you also have to do boring grindy stuff all the time like getting people to the polls.
It could be an elaborate ruse to make people think she can’t get enough random conservatives to break 6% at a Conservative conference. The Reagan conservatives didn’t get gay all of a sudden. It was the Bush people who were hiring all the gays. There were some gays there presumably, but there were also old people who have been going for years and years. She couldn’t get those generic conservatives to vote for her, more than 3%? Just as a thank you for helping in 2010, maybe?
I’m not saying she needs to do well at these things. I can ignore yet another surprising underperformance, but these poor performances might not be an elaborate hoax, but an actual indicator that things aren’t going quite that well.
Seriously. Palin. 3%. WTF? This is Sarah Palin we’re talking about. Not Herman Cain. Palin is said to be “polarizing”. Strong Feelings about her one way or another.
And votes, at CPAC, 3%. Even if you remove entirely Paul and Romney (the wrong people who shouldn’t have been there say some) - Palin is at 6% amongst the regular CPAC attendees. We’re not big on thinking bad thoughts about Palin and would simply prefer to attack those who say bad things about her, but we really need to think, was it really Ron Paul’s fault, or Mitt Romneys fault, or the gays fault that Palin got 3%? My belief is that, even though my preference is for Ron Paul, Palin should just sail through easy. But seeing her get 3% at CPAC makes me think that it won’t be an effortless breeze to victory, because apparently her supporters I guess aren’t into politics much, at least not enough to just go there, hang out with other Sarah Palin supporters. Like, there were how many votes cast? 2400 last time. 24 people is 1%. 480 people is 20%.
Are there 500 freepers who will buy a ticket for someone to go to this event for Sarah?
I’m getting the impression that FR is moving close to 100% Sarah, as an overall editorial belief, not that everyone agrees. One good, productive way to show huge support for Sarah, if FR wants to show huge support, is to seriously help Palin out here. Freerepublic presumably could’ve sponsored CPAC. Coulda worked Sarah hype. Moved some Palin bodies in. Sarah doesn’t have the organization. I mean, look at the bio. There really weren’t too many chances for her to meet too many people. Would Sarah Palin have been upset if Freerepublic was rounding up people and sending them in to vote for her? 500 people would’ve gotten her a strong third. And Palin still wouldn’t have been there. She would still be boycotting it. But she’d have 23% instead of 3%. Maybe no one told her she should be doing any of this stuff. Free Republic has been mighty. Rathergate. I think Free Republic can step in and help here, I really do. Would not Jim Rob want to be talking on the phone with Palin everyday, talking about how many freepers were needed for certain events. And these events will increase the visibility of FreeRepublic. And it looks like if Free Republic sets up a field staff for her, she might just use it. Who knows? The assumption I think is that Palin is such a brilliant tactician that these things are strategy and not errors. And I’m just not sure at all that that’s true. That’s the way Free Republic should be mighty for Sarah.
Nowhere had there been an example of anything like what happened in 1776 and 1787 in America.
Well said FRiend; while I haven't been as eloquent in using the words that you have, they reflect my thoughts and writings as well.
I've dealt with many, some "claiming" to be Christian, who say "Nations come and go". I want to slap some sense into them, but instead mock them by saying things like "I don't see you complaining about your God-given UNalienable right to free speech, religion, etc.
If we lose it now, it won't be returning anytime soon.
Not true. Some of her biggest supporters are the HillBuzz guys.
What’s a PaulBot post? I like Paul, yes, and I like Palin.
I’ll defend each of them at various times.
Anyway, have I missed the part where FreeRepublic was busting their collective asses to get to Washington DC to go to CPAC and vote for Sarah? You’ve seen now, over and over, Sarah’s inability to get votes at these things. FreeRepublic should step up here. If the idea is that FreeRepublic loves Palin so much, which is a cool idea, then FreeRepublic should do something concrete to help her. Like go have a fun time in Washington, DC with other Freepers. Meet other Freepers, have fun, vote for Sarah. I remember freeping as a physical activity that involved doing something like waving signs. This would be sort of like that. The project would be to deliver votes for Sarah. And you could just figure out a way to do it. Matching broke locals with money. Paying for travel. Just going there yourselves. This would help Sarah. There’s gonna be another one of these events coming up shortly, hopefully everything is very well organized and good votes for Sarah.
1st, rons 4 years older this time around.
actually, if no one new steps up. and CPAC was a good place to do it. Basically, you have to understand that the last 4 years have been pretty good to Ron Paul. The organizations are training people on field work I think, among other things.
There are a lot of young bright and now more polished and skilled ron paul supporters. People are enthusiastic. Very ready for him to announce he’s running and very ready to give a ton of money for the first money bomb. That first money bomb could give him as much money in one day than he had at any one point in the last campaign. And that’s way early. By any reasonable metric, he would be seen as well ahead. If none of these other candidates catch fire would
Palin Romney and Paul be farfetched in a state, maybe NH?
Then both Romney and Palin falter. I’m not saying that if Palin is strong she wouldn’t beat Paul. She would, head to head, if she’s strong. But I don’t think that it’s unreasonable to think that Ron Paul could be pulling in the teens consistently in the early stages. The Egypt thing played out very well for Ron Paul. Ron Paul has former staff that are in the state house in NH. Ron Paul supporters have been very active politically in NH. Ron Paul would take some states. I suspect Ron Paul would do well at caucuses. Win some of those. He hangs in there, and whoever is in there falters.
He’s going to do better than last time. But last time I had more confidence in Ron Pauls ability to win a head to head. He was much more of a longshot last time around. He wasn’t winning these things 4 years ago.
What I’d like to see sorta (not a first choice necessarily) is a situation like 40/40/20, palin/romney/paul. that’s a reasonable breakdown after a certain point. Around that time, Paul drops out and supports Palin and Palin says Ron Paul will be my Sec Treasury (or VP). I think that’s the one he’d want. Palin/Bachmann with Ron Paul as Sec Treasury. And then Palin beats Romney head to head fairly easily, and Palin wins in November.
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.