CPAC Straw Poll Winner: Ron Paul
The straw poll at the CPAC is always closely watched to see which Presidential wannabe (announced or othersie) has won conservatives’ hearts and if there’s a significance to the winner. But the poll hasn’t always been a (pardon the expression) tea leaf revealing the future. This year’s winner: Ron Paul. The significance: it underscores the strength of Tea Party movement support among conservatives.
It’s good news for Ron Paul (who few mainstream pundits believe is a serious contender for 2012) and bad news for Mitt Romney. Fox News:
Ron Paul has ended Mitt Romney’s three-year run as conservatives’ favorite for president, taking 31 percent of the vote in the Conservative Political Action Conference’s annual straw poll.
Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas known for his libertarian views, ran for president in 2008 but was never a serious contender for the GOP nomination.
Romney, former Massachusetts governor and also a 2008 GOP candidate, has won the last three presidential straw polls at the annual conference. This year, he came in second, with 22 percent.
Sarah Palin, who didn’t attend the conference, was a distant third in the straw poll, with 7 percent, followed by Tim Pawlenty, the Minnesota governor, and Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana.
The straw poll is not binding — and not necessarily a good forecaster, given that in 2008, John McCain went on to take the party’s nomination over Romney.
Raw Story notes that Ron Paul was like a rockstar to many at the meeting:
Did Ron Paul just launch his campaign for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012?
To anyone who watched any of the other Republican stars give their speeches at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference, the difference between Paul and the rest was clearly one of enthusiasm and volume. Indeed, it seems objective to report that the libertarian-leaning doctor from Texas was greeted more like a rock star than a politician.
And, Politico notes, he was the only speaker at CPAC to completely fill the convention hall.
“Sounds to me like the revolution is alive and well!” he said, eliciting another volley of cheers. “Quite a few here! Ten thousand people, all interested in promoting good government, limited government and personal liberty!”
Paul’s Campaign for Liberty could be better described as one of the founding organization’s of what’s been more broadly termed the tea parties. While not yet a cohesive force in U.S. politics, many of those associated tend to be conservative leaning and much has been made among mainline Republicans to try and attract greater support therein. Paul even warned recently that “neocon influence” has begun to infiltrate the glut of tea parties. however, wants to engage liberals and progressives as well, who he’s cited as having similar qualms with the government.
Look for Paul to get a lot more press coverage now that he won this straw poll.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
47 Responses to “CPAC Straw Poll Winner: Ron Paul”
Ron Paul is a wacko that holds wacko Tom Delay's seat from the wacko Texas 22rd wacko district.
I think everyone here knows of my love for the O man. If the GOP puts its money where its mouth is and gives me Ron Paul to vote for in 2012 I am switching sides…immediately. For those that boo'd enjoy the nation you have created but to those that voted for him my hat is off to you. Take a bow ladies and gentlemen that is the first kind thing I have said about CPAC in my entire life and I am now paying attention again to the GOP, though admittedly I know I will soon be offended and horrified I am to joyful at the moment to not gush.
Fortunately this is no big deal, just a quirk as the libertarians and conservatives party down together for a few days.
The most common intellectual argument against him. Followed closely by “too radical”. He was the only Republican candidate that was flat out against the mid-east wars and has been consistent in his views regardless of the political winds.
Ron Paul and Tom Delay were in Congress at the same tine. They are both Republicans from the greater Houston area but have nothing in common.
Remember how many corruption politicians have held seats in Illinois. Are you going to hold President Obama responsible for them? Or are you at least hold the Obama Administration responsible for appointing corruption Chicago politicians to positions in the administration. .
Paul's seat is the 14th, he hasn't repped 22nd since 1985.
/factcheck
The CPAC zoo.
Isn't this just a sign between the big government, nanny state Repubicans and the small government , fiscal conservative Republicans. At least Ron Paul has a long history of wanting to limit spending and limit the size of government. Compare Paul to idiots like Santorum who want the government to grow and want to establish a nanny state.
Not sure where you are getttng the idea that Santorum ever wanted government to grow and form a nanny state. His biggest mistake was letting the Bush Administration pressure him into backing Spector against Toomey a few years back, but generally Santorum has been a staunch conservative, at least by Pennsylvania standards.
Of course I'm open to you linking something I missed.
sd,
I actually agree with you and have a soft spot for Ron Paul. I agree with him on many things but disagree with others. He and Bob Barr were probably the only non-hypocrites at CPAC. I was simply pointing out that he, like Barr was booed by the lunatic fringe that was the majority at CPAC.
I just view this as more light entertainment. If the Tea Party ever gets organized enough to form a genuine third party and chooses Ron Paul, I think it would be great. If Ron Paul ran on the GOP ticket, then I think that would be great too. Either scenario would be especially great for Obama.
[...] The Moderate Voice [...]
Violence and coercion at home: Liberal.
Violence and coercion overseas: Conservative
Violence and coercion both at home and overseas: Moderate
Violence and coercion neither at home nor overseas: Wacko.
Obama's just like Bush.
But, I share your support of RP — and I won't be voting for the Rs if they nominate another candidate as usual. I'll vote third party.
+1
Unlike the other candidates, when he says he supports liberty, and small government, it's not empty rhetoric.
Don't bet on it. There are a lot of people that voted for Obama in order to end the wars, secret prisons, etc, and are realizing Obama's nothing more than Bush's third term. They won't vote for a John McCain or a Sarah Palin, but they'd vote for RP.
RB:
Good point, RB.
…and Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter were cheered and adored like they were on loan from Goddddd.
That's CPAC!.
Indeed, the Republican Party is in the cusp of an identity crisis. The most interesting part is that several elements are rather incompatible. It will be very interesting to see which element wins.
Heck, I might even put my Republican stripes back on.
I find it hard not to like RP. I don't agree with him on some issues, but I believe he is honest 99% of the time. He is one of the few politicians in Washington that we can actually trust.
I agree with DaMav, this poll was just a quirk.
I think Romney is the best bet for Reps in 2012.
Why I like Ron Paul.. We had the largest bank heist in the history of the world. Why on earth isn't anyone prosecuted and thrown in jail? Fed and banks continue to steal homes from people who are suffering bad times. Refusing to negotiate and no exceptions.. Our Government continues to freely bail out, and fund this corruption. The middle class have little of any chances to live the American Dream. We are destined to lose. Ron Paul will take a stand for the crap that is going on.. We gave Republicans a chance in 2001, they spent like drunken Liberals. Ron Paul is the only candidate that fully supports Homeschooling. Ron Paul has a bill on the table called Sanctity of Life that will end abortion with a stroke of a pen. Right now fiscal responsibility is more important to me than the two wars and the patriot act. If unemployment, inflation, and mass foreclosures continue.. We are will need to send all of our troops home to stop a mass revolt. The Republicans will likely take back the Senate and the House.. But we need Republicans to be Republicans.. They need to walk the walk and talk the talk.
Good. Unlike the other wastes of tissue, Paul has something approaching philosophical consistency and integrity. This puts a real fissure between the Tea Party and the christianist mainstream of the GOP.
Sure they are. They are both Republicans. All Republicans are the same. that’s why there is never any bipartisan consensus in the national legislature. However I will still vote for him should President Obama successfully allow open gays in the military. Though I would like to know more about Ron Paul’s rather vague “disruptive sexuality” stand on gays in the military. I do not believe open gay culture in the military is fair to everyone else and I do not believe that any further LGBT “rights” are needed. That is how I will vote.
No, I don't remember any such thing. However I do remember loads of Republicans either convicted, indicted, or resigning, from office under a legal cloud over the last 8 years. Way more than Democrats, but that’s common for Republican crooks. Ask about Richard Nixon. It’s his precedent.
http://www.slate.com/id/2149240/
Maybe this will remind you. When there are almost 80 politicians form Chicago who have been convicted. Look up the term “clout” and how it is used in Chicago. Shaking down commuters to pay off ethnic groups is how politicians function. Valerie Jarret is a clout from Chicago and now functions in the same capacity in the Obama Administration. Look at how David Axelrod's solution to every government problem is pork and more spending while sticking small groups of upper middle class whites with the tax bills.
The reason who do not remember corrupt Democrats is that the media rarely mentions corrupt Democrats (many are minorities and the MSM will never have a negative report about minority politicians) and if the media does report on corrupt Democrats, they usually minimize the political party.
Remember, the two previous Congressmen from Jesse Jackson Jr's district have done time in jail.
Sorry, I still don't believe libertarianism is the right approach, even with all the grotesque failures and horrible decisions (like the bailout). Government does have a role in protecting society from itself. The most glaring example is this very financial bailout that everyone complains about. If our government properly regulated the financial industry, preventing monopolization, oligopolies, cartels, companies from getting “too big to fail”, companies from engaging in predatory lending, and other known dangerous acts that led this country to ruin, we wouldn't even be here railing for or against Tea Parties.
We need smart government, doing the right things for the right reasons. If we follow the libertarian way, we'd simply have less government, less regulation, and more predatory business practices that will ruin the country in one way or another.
What I wouldn't bet on is that RP could defeat O if they went toe to toe. The idea strikes me as rather naive – in a well meaning way of course. I say that with a certain amount of affection for RP btw.
Well said Barky. The government-is-bad meme that was planted and took seed back in the 80's really fooled a lot of otherwise well-meaning people, who just bought into it lock, stock and barrel. Neither big govt. nor small govt. will do this country any good if smart principles, ethics, and priorities are allowed to continue going by the wayside.
Excellent response, BarkyBree, and welcome to TMV. There's an old line from Reagan:
“The government is not the solution to the problem. The government is the problem.”
Rep. Ron Paul is the clearest proponent of that old (and mistaken) bromide. It's possible to regulate too much or too little. I'm a Democrat now in part because I believe it will be easier to get the Dems to “throttle back” in some areas of regulation that it will be to get Republicans to regulate at all. The EPA is a perfect example of an imperfect government regulatory agency that on-balance has kept up healthier than we would have been otherwise. Our air is more breathable and our water more drinkable than a half dozen cities in China because we have regulation. Our buildings hold up in earthquakes because we have regulation. I could go on and on. Dems seek to solve problems through responsible government. Sometimes we overreach, but give me that any day over the anarchy that would result under a President Paul — no thanks.
The problem with “Big Government” now is that is controlled by and large by big business and Wall Street. Some foolishly thought that would change with Obama and the Democrats but it hasn't.
And as for Ron Paul and the Libertarians, at least they recognize that the Warfare State is at least as responsible for our woes as the Welfare State and in fact is little more than corporate welfare.
Ron Paul like Howard Dean is a threat to the Oligarchs and will continue to be marginalized.
Great…just a great comment Ron. Thanks.
although I am not sure where Dean comes in.
[...] CPAC Straw Poll Winner: Ron Paul (themoderatevoice.com) [...]
“All republicans are the same”
Well that just proves your ignorance. RP's opposed to war, the patriot act, guantanamo, secret prisons, torture, and is pro drug legalization. He was opposed to bush's bailouts, no child left behind, etc. He's for real fiscal responsibility, not just fiscally irresponsible people with Rs next to their name.
Why do you think Fox kicked him out of their debate, and why do you think Sean Hannity, O'riley, etc, bashed him every chance they got?
Obama's far more similar to Bush than RP is. In fact, Obama has continued basically all of the Bush policies he was elected to end.
I don't know … a lot of people are upset with Obama. A LOT of people voted for Obama because they thought he'd end the wars. Well, RP's actually anti-war, for real. A lot of people voted for Obama because they thought he'd end secret prisons, the patriot act, and warrantless wiretaps. Well, RP's actually opposed to these things. He'd pick up a ton of support from the left — bet on it.
And the right wing warmongers would have to decide if they care more about shrinking government at home (RP), or continuing Bush's foreign policy (Obama). It would be interesting, to say the least — and it would certainly redraw the political lines.
Unfortunately the government is pretty much the least principled, least ethical organization in the country.
In fact, government is pretty much always less principled, and less ethical than the population that elects it. Power corrupts, and the corrupt seek power. That's why government does more harm than good.
Creating one organization with a monopoly on aggressive violence doesn't solve anything, it just creates more problems.
“A LOT of people voted for Obama because they thought he'd end the wars”
Those people need have their hearing checked. During the campaign, Obama promised to increase our presence in Afghanistan and finish the job in Iraq. I really have no idea why anyone that understands English would think he would end either war.
True. But, that was a major reason he was elected — it was backlash against Bush. Perhaps it had something to do with the giant posters picturing him, with the subscript “PEACE”. Or maybe people were just too caught up in the rhetoric to actually listen to what he was saying.
“In fact, government is pretty much always less principled, and less ethical than the population that elects it. Power corrupts, and the corrupt seek power. That's why government does more harm than good.”
Really? Please back that up with something…anything.
“Or maybe people were just too caught up in the rhetoric to actually listen to what he was saying”
I think that pretty much sums it up….and not just on the issue of war.
You make some good points and some of them I agree with, but the popular cynical view of government currently held by many is not one that has held true throughout history. The government, at least in the long run, is a reflection of the society it represents. I've said before (and this is hardly an original statement) that as bad as congress is, it's constituents are often worse. As Ron Beasley observed, the larger problem with govt. isn't it's size as much as it is it's relationship with industry. That goes to a much more basic issue having to do with the framers intent of a citizen govt. and our ability to see that it isn't compromised by people of greed and “flexible” standards.
Oh, c'mon, this should be obvious by now. Politicians don't have a reputation for being slime balls for nothing. Who's more likely to seek power, the guy who just wants to peacefully live his own life, and respect the choices of his neighbors, or the megalomaniac who wants to control the lives of everyone around him? Who's more likely to succeed in obtaining power, the guy who's honest and principled, or the guy who's an excellent liar, is happy to say anything to get elected, and has the backing of major corporations and other special interests?
These things are clear to anyone with two eyeballs who takes even a cursory look at modern politics.
It's a reflection of society, but it's always worse than that society. Name one government that has been more moral than the society it rules over. Again, this should be obvious if you just consider the sorts of people that are most drawn towards power, and the sort of people who have the greatest means to obtain it.
I believe that aggressive violence is immoral. If there is a moral use of violence, it is only in self defense, or defense of innocents, from the aggression of others. We all recognize this principle in our daily lives — that it would be immoral for me to, say, threaten a person in order to force them to go kill and die in a conflict I believe in. Or, it would be immoral for me to go steal my neighbor's TV set and pawn it, even if I were to use the money for what I believe to be a good cause. We recognize that it would be immoral for me to take a gun over to my neighbor's house, and threaten to kidnap him if he doesn't stop consuming something I disapprove of, or if he operates a business without asking my permission first, or paying me a fee.
For some reason many believe these actions all magically become moral, if they get enough of their friends to agree with them, and they get a big enough gang together to participate in it. This is what I think needs to change. We need to apply the same moral standards to all aspects of our life, including “politics”.
Rules are good — people's property rights should be respected, and those who harm others should be stopped. Aggressive violence, though, is never acceptable, and it always causes more problems than it solves.
Power is a zero sum game. We've centralized the power, so that it can be easily controlled by a few — I want to decentralize the power again, to communities and individuals. The more decentralized the better. State government is better than national government, and town government is better than state government.
It depends on if you consider supporting just about any law the Religious Right wants being a nanny state. Running peoples lives in the name of one particular religion requires a pretty large and powerful government at some level.
RP is libertarian….except when it comes to abortion and homosexuality. He also believes in the Austrian School of Economics, the Gold Standard and other things that belong in the nineteenth century or earlier. Like the idea that small government can do the job for a nation that is the fifth largest in land area, has a third of a billion people and an infrastructure that (Thanks to leaving it to the private sector for part of it and demonizing government for another part.) is creaking its way into the 21st century. When RP or his acolytes come up with a workable solution to some of those problems other than the market being able to take care of it they will deserve respect. Until then, forget it.
At last NB shows what he really believes in. No taxes. How original.
“My Ignorance”….?
Stick it where the sun don't shine clown.
Interesting thread, thanks to you all.