Posted on 03/08/2014 2:52:54 PM PST by PaulCruz2016
Sen. Rand Paul demolished his competition in the 2014 Washington Times/CPAC presidential preference straw poll on Saturday, winning 31 percent of the vote -- nearly three times the total of second-place Sen. Ted Cruz.
Mr. Cruz's 11 percent was still a big improvement for the freshman senator, who won just 4 percent in last year's straw poll. Neurosurgeon Ben Carson was third with 9 percent and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was fourth with 8 percent in results that signal growing discontent with the GOP establishment in Washington.
Indeed, CPAC voters now have an unfavorable view of Republicans in Congress, with 51 percent saying they disapprove of the job the GOP is doing on Capitol Hill. Just last year the GOP had a 54 percent approval rating, and in 2012 they held a 70 percent approval rating.
(Excerpt) Read more at m.apnews.com ...
Quote the whole thing.
“”I oppose the federal government allowing abortion on military bases, recognizing gay marriage in the military, in federal employment and immigration, and homosexualizing the military.
I intend to support a party platform, and candidates, and lawmakers who are conservative.”” AND WHO MAKE THAT POSSIBLE.
We’ve been going downhill since 1986.
We are meant to assume that you agree with post 301.
Very well.
Don’t know about the hill but it certainly gives incite
into the makeup of the voting attendees.
incite
s/b
insight
Yes, good point.
There are TONNAGE of POLITICAL issues. They must be prioritized. I put cutting government (CUT entitlements/social programs/unconstitutional federal activity, but EFFECTIVELY BUILD defense, cutting waste) and taxes at the top by far. The sodomy thing (”gay rights” an oxymoron) is near the top but government takeover of your life and activities will sooner than later take away your voting rights and it won’t be up to you or me how anything is run, including sodomites in the military or anything else.
with a few POTUS upticks like Cool Cal Coolidge and, of course, Reagan. But spiritually and morally, we and our society, along with the rest of the world, have descended into a Fabian Society/Progressive, Biblical Laodicean malaise from which only God in His Providence and mercy can takes us out.
I'm holding out hope that He will.
I hear you.
I’m not aware of GOP nominees whose top national campaign issues were not the economy and national defense, so I don’t know what you are upset about.
If you support conservative candidates, a conservative platform, the conservative agenda, and conservative legislation, oppose the federal government allowing abortion on military bases, recognizing gay marriage in the military, in federal employment and immigration, and homosexualizing the military, then there must be some kind of mistake about you disagreeing with conservatives.
So you are just a fellow conservative, fine, I thought you were pushing some anti-conservative argument.
Yeah, you jumped to conclusions because I don't march in lock-step with party-liners. I think for myself. We need more like that around here.
Still don't know what affirmative stance you as a conservative stand for.
Go conservatism.
I’m glad you aren’t one of those libertarians who are always fighting to defeat conservatism, at first you sure sounded like one.
I'm a freedom fighter. I love America and want her free from government tyranny. Of course, elect the best you can, but put slicing government to the bone (except defense) first and TRUST BUT VERIFY ALL politicians. The integrity of politicians are the result, not the cause, of our moral and spiritual condition, whether it be healthy or sick - that's my political stand.
I love American society and want her free from the myriad of ills and perversions besetting it. We the People need to repent towards God so once again we can be a happy and free society that believes in God, reawakened to the reality of Jesus Christ - that's my individual moral and spiritual stand.
So true, social liberalism leads to big government.
For a while, it looked like your message was for conservatives to avoid requiring that the candidates they support, to actually be conservatives, we get that from the libertarians, and it looked that was your message as well.
You're sure about that. Then what happened with GW Bush? He was definitely considered a social conservative. What happened with him? He was a socialist - "compassionate" and "benevolent" government was always the answer to Bush. So he massively grew government and greased the skids for Obama - not so compassionate, not so benevolent, but the levers of overreaching government power and equipment were put in place for him.
Eisenhower was a "social conservative" and he grew government by leaps and bounds. Eisenhower demonstrated he also was a socialist, so much so that it finally brought Reagan out of the film industry and into politics.
Nixon was a social conservative but he LOVED government.
I would argue that if you don't put freedom from government first whether you call yourself a Conservative or Donald Duck, you advance the socialist agenda, howbeit unwittingly.
And THAT's an HISTORICAL fact Jack.
So you ARE at war with conservatism, contrary to all your dishonest posting for the last few hours.
You want to move conservatives left, and away from conservatism, you think that conservatives coming to support liberals will give us smaller government and lower taxes.
The democrats with better economics.
George W. never represented conservatives, nor did Eisenhower, they were both seen as moderates, not conservatives.
Your confused posts and drifting all over the place, and dishonesty and evasiveness, make it impossible to know what the heck you are rambling about.
Please explain why Eisenhower, Nixon, and Bush were not social conservatives.
I don’t have to explain something as obvious as Eisenhower and Nixon, and Bush, not being wanted by conservatives.
Nixon was so liberal and anti-conservative that I refused to vote for him.
What you are so dishonest about, is all your game playing and lying and evasion.
Skip all the BS and just get to the point, you want conservatives to quit seeking true conservatives, and want them to move left and start voting for candidates who are openly liberal on social issues.
I'll help you out. There's only two others since 1900 at least in the GOP - Cool Cal and Reagan. I suppose you're going to tell me Reagan wasn't a social conservative either, but of course you don't explain anything and refuse to define your terms. That's called a conclusory argument which is an invalid argument. I'm providing LOTS of reasons why freedom must be the first political priority evidenced by several historical examples.
You give no reason for refuting these reasons or examples and give no evidence to prove otherwise - you only assert and conclude. Sadness (again).
Maybe once again, we're done.
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.