Patterico's Pontifications

2/20/2010

Ron Paul Wins CPAC Straw Poll

Filed under: 2012 Election,Politics — DRJ @ 6:07 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

Ron Paul won the CPAC Presidential straw poll with 31% of the vote and John Hinderaker at PowerLine is not amused:

“This is dismaying, to the extent one takes it seriously. Ron Paul is the crazy uncle in the Republican Party’s attic. He is not a principled libertarian like, say, Steve Forbes.”

And that’s the mild part.

— DRJ

71 Responses to “Ron Paul Wins CPAC Straw Poll”

  1. I have no respect for a man who has appeared on Alex Jones’ radio show more than once. Ron Paul goes on that slimebags show all the time.

    Newtons.Bit (b10556)

  2. Laup Nor is no more a Republican than our resident trolls are intelligent, witty well spoken debaters in search of mutual understanding of the day’s pressing issues.

    the closest Laup Nor comes to being a conservative is the conservator he obviously needs to have appointed so that he can finally receive the mental health care he so clearly needs but has refused for far too long.

    he, his district, Texas, the nation and the world would all benefit from such an act of mercy. it is cruel to leave the obviously deranged at the mercy of their demons and the capriciousness of day to day life.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  3. Embarrasing. Reminds me of the begging Bob Dornan did to “get me 1% of the vote, to make a point!” Ugh. I’ve had enough of beautiful losers, thank you, now go sit next to Dennis Kucinich.

    TimesDisliker (0c822c)

  4. Take everything Hinderaker said and multiply it by two. That’s Ron Paul.

    Words fail.

    Ag80 (f67beb)

  5. He is not a principled libertarian rich boy born with a silver spoon in his mouth like, say, Steve Forbes.

    FIFY.

    Official Internet Data Office (99772e)

  6. He is not a principled libertarian rich boy born with a silver spoon in his mouth like, say, Steve Forbes.

    FIFY.

    Right, because that’s the most relevant distinction between Ron Paul and Steve Forbes.

    Why, exactly, should we care about whether Steve Forbes is a rich boy born with a silver spoon in his mouth? The question at issue is fidelity to libertarian principles.

    CliveStaples (0c7505)

  7. I have to disagree with Hinderaker on that one. Although seeing as how the Powerline guys are solid neocons I can’t blame them for disliking Paul.

    Steve Forbes is no sort of libertarian, principled or otherwise. He’s just another Big Business Republican.

    Subotai (9fc393)

  8. Heh.

    Patterico mentioned in another thread that he wished he could’ve been at CPAC. Now I kinda wish I could’ve been there too.

    Are you guys surprised? Ron Paul may be “the crazy uncle in the Republican Party’s attic”, but this is the Year of the Tea Party, and they’re a bunch of proverbial Mad Hatters.

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  9. Far as Tea Parties go, anyway. So who gets to be Alice?

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  10. Ron Paul has his own problems, and I agree they are substantial. However, I could care less if Steve Forbes is faithfully following libertarian principles. Forbes ran in Republican primaries, and he lost badly. The last thing the Republican party needs as a candidate for any office is some rich guy who inherited his money, and especially one like Forbes who’s eager to tell you that he deserves it.

    Official Internet Data Office (99772e)

  11. You really think Ron Paul is the Tea Party candidate? That’s probably the most insulting thing I’ve heard anyone say about the Tea Partiers.

    CliveStaples (0c7505)

  12. I could care less if Steve Forbes is faithfully following libertarian principles

    I’d be happy to see him follow any principles.

    First, he attacked Prop 187 in vehement fashion. Then, running for President, he said that we need a nation-wide Prop 187! Rejected by the voters, he is back to being a fan of amnesty and open borders again.

    Subotai (9fc393)

  13. It’s too bad Palin wasn’t at CPAC.

    imdw (4854f4)

  14. There we go: Alice.

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  15. what you have to take from this, is that Paul and ‘Mittens’ switched places, from last year, Palin who didn’t show, ended up with a marginally higher
    score than Pawlenty who did, If I could have gone I would have this year, but it’s not really indicative
    of anything

    ian cormac (9575ac)

  16. Ron Paul — Barry Obama’s easy ride to a second term. THINK people!

    Jaime (81653e)

  17. What Jaime said.
    And add in a 2/3rds majority for Pelosi and Reid (if he makes it that far).

    Sam (8d373a)

  18. Only 2900 votes were cast out of more than 10,000 registered attendees who were given ballots. Paul got about 1000 votes.

    WLS (3dde12)

  19. The conference was crawling with homosexuals. This result is not surprising. They were booing conservatives yesterday.

    j curtis (5126e4)

  20. I don’t care all that much about who wins a straw poll a full two years before the first primaries are to be held. I just take it as a good sign that libertarians seem to have ended their flirtation with the liberal Democrats and are likely to oppose Obama’s agenda from here on in.

    JVW (fd30ab)

  21. CPAC’s sole function is to embarrass Team R I think.

    happyfeet (713679)

  22. Ron Paul is not a Tea Party candidate; in fact, he has a primary opponent in the GOP Primary in his TX district that is a Tea Party organizer.

    AD - RtR/OS! (e05987)

  23. Steve Forbes is no sort of libertarian, principled or otherwise.

    Precisely. How could anyone confuse that sail-trimmer Forbes with a libertarian?

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  24. Paul v Forbes?
    Well, at least people vote for Paul.

    AD - RtR/OS! (e05987)

  25. Hamas and Storm Front endorse Nor Luap. Go figure.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  26. You may be right on that feets, Romney three years in a row, and now Paul, if they are the answer, what’s the question

    ian cormac (9575ac)

  27. I think it has to do with selling booths, mostly. And sponsorships.

    happyfeet (713679)

  28. j curtis said:

    The conference was crawling with homosexuals. This result is not surprising. They were booing conservatives yesterday.

    This is what’s great about trolls.

    Sure, you have you’re imdw or smily. I may disagree with those two. They may even make me mad. But sometimes they make me think and make sure I have sound backing for my opinion.

    Then, you have j curtis. I don’t know if he was looking for approval or ammunition. Either way, it’s a fool. Not a funny fool, but the kind of fool that you tell your children to stay away from.

    Ag80 (f67beb)

  29. The person what got booed was a Ryan Sorba and Mr. Sorba won’t be invited anywhere nice for many many moons I think cause he doesn’t know how to behave like an adult.

    He embarrassed his momma I think.

    happyfeet (713679)

  30. Then, you have j curtis. I don’t know if he was looking for approval or ammunition. Either way, it’s a fool. Not a funny fool, but the kind of fool that you tell your children to stay away from.

    Comment by Ag80 — 2/20/2010 @ 10:04 pm

    You sound extremely angry. CPAC was a fag-fest this year. I’m just stating the facts.

    j curtis (5126e4)

  31. By the way, AG80, everyone knows you are a failed leftist sock-puppet concern troll, so give it up.

    j curtis (5126e4)

  32. You sound extremely angry. CPAC was a fag-fest this year. I’m just stating the facts.

    Ag80 (f67beb)

  33. j curtis – Do you have a problem with COCK and people who like COCK?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  34. j curtis:

    You got me. You got the tater-salad.

    Ag80 (f67beb)

  35. curtis – Do you have a problem with COCK and people who like COCK?

    Comment by daleyrocks — 2/20/2010 @ 10:46 pm

    I think you guys got to keep your craving for cock out of politics. Am I the only one?

    j curtis (5126e4)

  36. 2.Laup Nor is no more a Republican than our resident trolls are intelligent, witty well spoken debaters in search of mutual understanding of the day’s pressing issues.

    What does that say about the geniuses at your convention?

    Intelliology (00d844)

  37. “The conference was crawling with homosexuals. This result is not surprising. They were booing conservatives yesterday.”

    I recommend everyone watch it. It was quite a moment.

    http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201002190044

    imdw (017d51)

  38. Ron Paul has some worth while things to say. He will never be the Republican candidate and he has a lot of nuts around him him but he was closer to predicting the coming financial crisis in the last ten years than anyone else. His solutions are oversimplified, like ending the Fed, but he made some good points.

    I am more concerned about CPAC allowing the John Birch Society to be a sponsor, one of 200 but it still was stupid. I also see the JBS being quoted as a “conservative” source in a few places.

    The fall election is assumed to be a blowout for the GOP so lots of lunatics will be trying to attach themselves to the bandwagon and I hope the organizers of these meetings are paying attention.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  39. I am more concerned about CPAC allowing the John Birch Society to be a sponsor, one of 200 but it still was stupid.

    That is alarming. The MSM and Obama are going to use this relentlessly.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  40. Yeah, I noticed that sponsor’s name as well – they need to kick those nutbags out of all future endeavors if they want to obtain credibility.

    Dmac (799abd)

  41. “Yeah, I noticed that sponsor’s name as well – they need to kick those nutbags out of all future endeavors if they want to obtain credibility.”

    Their keynote was calling progressivism a “disease.” There’s a lot to go on credibility.

    imdw (55b119)

  42. Their keynote was calling progressivism a “disease.”

    It’s not just a disease–right now it’s America’s pre-existing condition.

    Official Internet Data Office (99772e)

  43. ‘Their keynote was calling progressivism a “disease.” ‘

    One of the definitions of “disease” is… “any harmful, depraved, or morbid condition, as of the mind or society”…

    If one considers the results of just one “progressive” attempt (e.g., Great Society’s War on Poverty to ameliorate poverty in America resulting in an explosion of single-parent households, the breakdown of the black family structure and welfare lifestyle)), one can make a solid argument that “progressivism” is, in fact, a disease.

    And that’s just one example.

    GeneralMalaise (0428a9)

  44. Another great moment was Beck saying that america was not a clown show. This is along the lines of “arguing with idiots.”

    imdw (00bfab)

  45. Aprroximately 70% of black children are born to single mothers today, and before birth they are a constant target for abortion.

    Most Planned Parenthood centers are concentrated in inner cities. Maybe the Black Panthers were on to something when they warned that the then new law allowing abortions would be used to unleash a new “holocaust”.

    GeneralMalaise (0428a9)

  46. Their keynote was calling progressivism a “disease.” There’s a lot to go on credibility.

    Sure, and by contrast your side definitely has loads of cred after the past eight years of calling Bush Hitler, Bush the Baby Killer of Iraq, our troops as mindlesss killbots, our troops as evil torturers of innocent terrorists, Cheney as a war profiteer, the GOP as imprisoning anyone who disagrees with them, the GOP as trying to restrict the right of free speech (by the same people chanting “Boosh is Hitler!”) – the list is endless.

    But you’re right – a small convention attented by less than 10 thousand people who think a type of political thinking is wrong is naturally shades worse than the above.

    Tell me something – I’ve asked you this repeatedly here over the past few years – why do you post here? You contribute nothing to the conversation, save for your endless parrotting of DNC talking points on a daily basis. You do nothing but reflexively post the contrarian to any header posting, no matter the subject. So why bother to expend the effort in the first place?

    Dmac (799abd)

  47. “Progressives” always have the best of intentions, but the results are more often than not quite disastrous.

    GeneralMalaise (0428a9)

  48. #45 should’ve read “approximately”…

    GeneralMalaise (0428a9)

  49. “Sure, and by contrast your side definitely has loads of cred after the past eight years of calling Bush Hitler, Bush the Baby Killer of Iraq, our troops as mindlesss killbots, our troops as evil torturers of innocent terrorists, Cheney as a war profiteer, the GOP as imprisoning anyone who disagrees with them, the GOP as trying to restrict the right of free speech (by the same people chanting “Boosh is Hitler!”) – the list is endless.”

    The keynote also said his education — reading in libraries — was free. Libraries are free. How progressive.

    imdw (e66d8d)

  50. Yes, I saw Glenn Beck’s keynote speech at CPAC, and you can see all 64 spectacular minutes of it here. In fact, you should watch all of it.

    Before this, I’ve never seen Glenn Beck on television–just some brief video clips here and there. But I hear that this CPAC speech was just like his TV shows, except it was his best ever.

    Official Internet Data Office (99772e)

  51. ‘Their keynote was calling progressivism a “disease.”

    That’s a damn good description.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  52. “Libraries are free. How progressive.”

    One of the great sponsors and benefactors of free libraries was Andrew Carnegie who founded 2800 public libraries in the US and paid for them.

    As usual, no knowledge of history. Maybe you should spend more time in libraries than here pestering people.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  53. I’m sorry. Are you telling me that libraries are free because of Carnegie? Seriously?

    imdw (00bfab)

  54. Their keynote was calling progressivism a “disease.” There’s a lot to go on credibility.

    Yea, the speech should have called it “liberalism” instead of a tongue twister tied to the willy-nilly, feel-good, oh-so-relevant euphemism of “progressive.”

    Mark (411533)

  55. Take note of how the little fella skips merrily along, ignoring the education that has been served up to him.

    GeneralMalaise (0428a9)

  56. The keynote also said his education — reading in libraries — was free. Libraries are free. How progressive.

    Strike as non – responsive, your honor (as per usual).

    You still haven’t answered my question. Why do you come here every day, when all you do is post non – relevant snark and general contrarianism to every post? What kind of person does this, do you think? Someone who harbors some deeper psychological need that’s not being fulfilled in their actual lives? Any theories?

    Dmac (799abd)

  57. “Yea, the speech should have called it “liberalism” instead of a tongue twister tied to the willy-nilly, feel-good, oh-so-relevant euphemism of “progressive.””

    He addresses the liberal vs. progressive labels. Or did you not hear the speech?

    “You still haven’t answered my question. Why do you come here every day, when all you do is post non – relevant snark and general contrarianism to every post? What kind of person does this, do you think? Someone who harbors some deeper psychological need that’s not being fulfilled in their actual lives? Any theories?”

    I’m trying to become good friends with JD. Plus the education is free. By which i mean, subsidized by someone else.

    imdw (490521)

  58. The little skipper…

    ain’t he cute!

    GeneralMalaise (0428a9)

  59. I’m trying to become good friends with JD. Plus the education is free. By which i mean, subsidized by someone else.

    Strike as non – responsive. Please answer my question, instead of trying to change the subject as usual.

    Dmac (799abd)

  60. “Strike as non – responsive.”

    That’s clever. Where did you learn this? Almost as good as “cupcake”

    imdw (d5778d)

  61. I’m sorry. Are you telling me that libraries are free because of Carnegie? Seriously?

    Comment by imdw

    No, I’m trying, without much success, to teach you that the free library in this country originated with him. Free public schools began only in the 1880s. You don’t know any history.

    Seriously

    Mike K (2cf494)

  62. “No, I’m trying, without much success, to teach you that the free library in this country originated with him. Free public schools began only in the 1880s. You don’t know any history.”

    So lets take a look at the Free Library of Philadelphia, which Carnegie helped to fund (but did not originate). It’s now supported by city and state funds. And it nearly had to close without them. So, what does it matter that Carnegie helped to fund these things again? Are you saying having government funded libraries is not a progressive thing? Or ..what?

    imdw (de7003)

  63. Are you saying having government funded libraries is not a progressive thing?

    Having government-funded meals would be a “progressive” thing, too, but the word “progressive” does not mean what you think it means. There is no progress involved with being “progressive.” It’s a regression to the serfdom of feudal times.

    Official Internet Data Office (99772e)

  64. Paul wins straw-poll at CPAC…
    One of the panel members on FoxNewsSunday mentioned that one-half of the attendees at CPAC were under 25, and provided most of the support for Paul.

    AD - RtR/OS! (b35340)

  65. He addresses the liberal vs. progressive labels. Or did you not hear the speech?

    That’s what made his use of “progressive” even more ironic or, in effect, no more than a touchy-feely euphemism. After all, he described a variation of that same irony back in the early 1900s, when many liberals were embarrassed by the label “progressive” and instead wanted to be known as “liberal.” Several decades later, it’s the other way around.

    History sort of repeating itself.

    Why be an enabler to such disingenuity, to such political schizophrenia?

    Beck (and others) should drop the wiggle wording and say plainly and simply that liberalism — l-i-b-e-r-a-l-i-s-m — is a disease or disorder. Personally, I describe liberalism as dishonest and phony, no more than a sign of bratty immaturity.

    Mark (411533)

  66. The interesting thing is that most Progressives in the early part of the 20th-Century were Republicans; generally, only the Academe wing of the Dem Party had any Progressives in it – not a lot of Progressivism south of the Mason-Dixon Line prior to mid-century.

    AD - RtR/OS! (b35340)

  67. That’s clever. Where did you learn this? Almost as good as “cupcake”

    Answer the question, please – why do you come here?

    Dmac (799abd)

  68. Liberalism…
    I find no argument with a liberal, if they endorse the liberalism of Jefferson, or Thomas Paine, etc.
    Barry Goldwater said that, at heart, he was a Liberal in the grand tradition of Jefferson, etc, who believed in the Freedom of the Individual, and that government must be limited and kept on a tight rein – “The Government that Governs best, Governs least”.
    The problems is that the opposite of Conservatives today aren’t Liberals, it is that they are Leftists, and Progressives are Leftists.
    It is the Conservatives who, at their foundation, are Liberal.

    AD - RtR/OS! (b35340)

  69. “…why do you come here…”

    Because it is a fly: All it does is eat, $hit, and bother people!

    AD - RtR/OS! (b35340)

  70. The interesting thing is that most Progressives in the early part of the 20th-Century were Republicans;

    I notice that Glenn Beck called Herbert Hoover a “progressive.” I admit my knowledge of American history is sketchy enough that it was not that long ago I’d have gone “huh!!?”

    I originally assumed Hoover was a staunch conservative Republican, more laissez faire than pushy do-gooder. IOW, that he favored sort of a “survival of the fittest” approach to the Great Depression.

    However, because of this forum, I had to dig up some actual specifics on Hoover, which is when I found out he was quite ideologically squishy, sort of a 1930s RINO. That’s best represented by his raising income taxes — among other taxes — to a huge degree in 1930, just 2 years after the disaster of the Great Stock Market Crash of 1929.

    He also started all the government activism that soon would be ratcheted up to a greater degree by Roosevelt.

    So as things turn out, the Great Depression would not have become so great — and long lasting — if Herbert Hoover had been laissez faire instead of Big Mommy.

    Beck implied as much by noting that an even larger economic collapse than the one beginning in 1929, the decline of 1920-1921, didn’t fester like Hoover’s/Roosevelt’s Great Depression because Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge (apparently more conservative than RINO) emphasized the tactic of lowering taxes. The “progressive” Hoover and FDR did just the opposite.

    Just one more example of ass-backwards liberal sentiment or preference being at the heart of a pathetic, idiotic outcome.

    Mark (411533)

  71. Since it’s non – responsive every time I’ve asked this question, that explanation is as good as anything else I can come up with. Occam’s Razor lives!

    Dmac (799abd)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3644 secs.