Skip to comments.The Face Of Alinksy At CPAC (Ron Paul and Gay Rights)
Posted on 02/21/2010 8:45:57 AM PST by Three if by government
When I began hearing headlines out of CPAC about the gay rights activist and the support for Ron Paul in the straw poll which is being trumpeted by the left media with such joy I began to think back to something I heard regarding Alinky tactics in "Rules For Radicals".
Dont send out people to events to protest against the opposition send out people in support that will undermine their beliefs and divide their supporters.
In this example I believe they sent out people in KKK outfits in support of a republican cadidate to undermine him and make him look racist.
Common sense tells you that the nation is opposed to gay rights legislation they can even pass these laws in California yet we are to believe there is a gay ascendancy in the conservative movement?
This spits in the face of tradionational values which is a fundamental aspect to our movement and actually part of many that are left of center and religious.
Are we to believe that Conservatives are split on this topic just as Beck said they are trying to make us feel like we are in the minority while we represent north of 75% the population on this topic.
Ron Paul gets overwhelming support from a poll while most conservatives reject his stance on foreign policy and the blame America first attitude which is on constant display by the Obama administration.(Demorilization of population)
We need to realize what we are up against the left will stop at nothing to demoralize us; be resolute and instead of reading headlines, becoming discouraged know in your heart that the American people will not fall for these tactics; we represent the majority trust your instics and vote with your heart.
I am entirely convinced that Ron Paul (either knowingly or unknowingly) is being funded and supported by Soros et. al. I’m also convinced that Paul will run as an independent siphoning off probably 2-3% in popular vote, essentially doing to the GOP what Nadar did to the Dems in 2000, and to a lessor extent in 2004. Ron Paul and the Paulians are bad, bad news.
31 percent is NOT, “overwhelming support” in ANY poll. The Paultards are at it again, and early this year.
22% for Romney and 7% for Palin is an even more frighting.
What do these people see in Romney?
Listen my point is that this kook couldnt get 2% of the vote thats my point the left used CPAC as a way to demoralize us with Alinksy style tactics.
Also whats interesting if you look at his comments to undermine the FBI and CIA
which has been a goal of the left and radicals for decades. I do agree with your assessment.
The same people who thought McCain was presidential timber. Out of all the names on that list, I saw maybe TWO I could have voted for. However, where were CONSERVATIVE options such as Senator DeMint, Rick Santorum, or General Petraeus?
0.04 percent in the 2008 election, actually. In a couple of meaningless primary states he got double-digits, but when it mattered early in the primary season, yeah, he was pulling Kucinich-type numbers. Which is one of the big reasons I have less tolerance for Paulistinians than I do for O-bots.
with only 2500 votes cast out of over 10,000 attendees this is no more significant than an online poll
CPAC has jumped the shark given it's pay to play concept
CPAC has become all about pay to attend
My point is that these two issues dont hold water and I believe it was a tactic used by the left to discourage conservatism and its values.
I agree wholeheartedly with your point—that’s just par for the course when dealing with the loopy left—they don’t debate or use facts and logic, but just tear their opponent down with the most base (and baseless) tactics they can.
conservatives reject his stance on foreign policy and the blame America first attitude.Guess who the MSM will support.
Don’t make the Colin Powell mistake and assume Petraeus is conservative.
Ron Paul is just another Ross Perot who is being manipulated to siphon off votes from the any conservative Republican presidential candidate in 2012. That is the Soros/DemonRAT/Obama/Communist Party "hope and change ploy".
So the majority of the people at the conservative political action committee are liberal plants? Do you have some evidence to support your conspiracy theory? Or should I put on my tin foil hat when reading your vanity posts?
You mean kind of like the for-profit Tea Party Nation convention, where Sarah Palin was reportedly paid six figures to give the keynote?
The sample size was about 2400, which is pretty good. There were a lot of kids here this year.
I took some pics of the stats as they were broken down from the dias. If the pics come out ok, I will post on my web site so you can see the demo breakdown, as I recall, kids were the biggest voting bloc.
Well, Paul is a Libertarian, and as I’ve said before, Libertarianism is a great political theory if you’re 16.
Can you please clarify? Whom were THEY supposedly supporting? This is the first time I've seen anything about this.
He makes sense on the fed & the economy in general. When he goes off on foregin policy, he’s absolutely bonkers.
What’s an ‘Alinky’ and what’s an ‘Alinksy’?
It makes no sense to argue with a Ron Paul tin hatter but I dont remember hearing that they had liberal detectors at the door and yes I do believe Ron Paul people and the left were trying to undermine CPAC and allow the left media to report on something it was not.
Support of the gay marriage act and Ron Paul as representative of what went on.
It was about saving our nation from tyrany and looking to foundational principles and traditional values.
Did I insult your dear leader for leaving a letter out?
So easy to irritate the left....
Dick Cheney disagrees with your attempt to compare Ron Paul’s oppositon to world policing with Obama’s policy. Cheney says he “completely agrees” with Obama on Afghanistan.
Captain we need more lithium crystals.....
Bravo and very true.
I was at CPAC — there was no alinskyite conspiracy.
The fact is Ron Paul has a large, devoted following of libertarian minded people — many of them young people.
They registered for CPAC and the Campaign for Liberty was a sponsor.
2500 people voted in the straw poll (i didn’t, because it means little to me and it was never made obvious where I was supposed to get my ballot), and out of those 2500, 31% supported Mr. Paul.
It’s no different from when thousands of pleasant young people from all over showed up in support of Romney.
There’s no conspiracy.
As far as the “gay agenda” taking over CPAC, that’s a joke.
There exists a group called GOProud. They had a booth, just like the National Poker Alliance had a booth. Heck, the John Birch Society had a booth. It’s easy to pay a fee and have a booth. I’ve seen the ACLU there in the past.
It’s CPAC — if people want to show up and make their case as to why they should be included in the conservative movement, they’re free to do so, just as people are free to ignore them.
I think legitimate criticism can and should be leveled at CPAC. But, I'm not sure their fee structure is one of them. It's not cheap to put on these big events. Every organization is going to charge something when it has it's annual "convention". CPAC is no different. It was less than $200 for a 3-day pass. That's well within the norm for these kinds of events. I go to some legal events that can be 5-6 times that amount of money.
Did all the people complaining about Ron Paul winning the CPAC straw poll object as strenuously when Mitt Romney won it?
It is a meaningless “poll,” which is more or less a game, requiring organizational skills.
The gay thing, though, was too much. A pro-family speaker ought not be shouted down at a “conservative” conference.
The idea of auditing the fed makes good sense to me. Especially as a prelude to getting rid of it.
The left already had the stories locked and loaded. No speak about small government liberty and defeating tyrany.
Here is Alinsky info:
My President Was an Honor Student at the Alinsky Academy:
That's right. I don't think anybody would be shouted down at a conservative conference. That's just not how conservatives behave, at least in my experience. But, that certainly is a mark of a leftist's mentality - win the debate by not letting the other guy speak.
No conservatives are throwing pies in the faces of liberal speakers, but how many times has it happened to Ann Coulter? Conservatives are civil even in the face of incivility.
Thanks for your first hand observations.
Agreed, but that’s not what happened.
I wasn’t in the room, but it’s my understanding that a few people booed a guy who said that the GOProud group shouldn’t be allowed to have a booth.
They didn’t boo him for being pro-family, they (a few people) booed him (not a heavyweight, whoever he was) for deciding that he should be the authority on who should or shouldn’t be allowed to be a paying sponsor of CPAC.
Again, there is always a WIDE variety of organizations with booths there, from the ACLU to the National Organization for Marriage to Judicial Watch to the Birchers to the NRA to the Susan B. Anthony List.
The point is that CPAC has never been some fulcrum of lock-step conservative organizations — different groups can set up there (although the discussions and speeches are typically only with traditional conservative types).
The fact is Ron Paul has a large, devoted following of libertarian minded people many of them young people.
They registered for CPAC and the Campaign for Liberty was a sponsor.
2500 people voted in the straw poll (i didnt, because it means little to me and it was never made obvious where I was supposed to get my ballot), and out of those 2500, 31% supported Mr. Paul.
Its no different from when thousands of pleasant young people from all over showed up in support of Romney.
Theres no conspiracy.
As far as the gay agenda taking over CPAC, thats a joke.
There exists a group called GOProud. They had a booth, just like the National Poker Alliance had a booth. Heck, the John Birch Society had a booth. Its easy to pay a fee and have a booth. Ive seen the ACLU there in the past.
Its CPAC if people want to show up and make their case as to why they should be included in the conservative movement, theyre free to do so, just as people are free to ignore them.
Thanks for posting your observations.
Seems it's not as big a threat as the people on the Homosexual Agenda ping-list make it out to be.
Still, my feelings are that the GOProud people would be much more at home in the Democratic party - the Republican Party is not the place to push gay issues.
The Republicans are going to have to define themselves as separate from the Democrats in the upcoming elections in 2010 and 2012. So they are going to have to come out as the more financially responsible, pro-military and traditional values party in order to get enough people motivated to overcome the socialists and the criminal activity on the other side.
Whats wrong with the John Birch Society? Do anti communist groups alarm you?
It’s so easy to yank the chain of the Paulacks!
No different than liberals all emotion no substance.
I was talking about the GOProud people.
Back in the day people used to make fun of them, but now look at what we have as a President...
Exactly! Something is rotten to the core in this whole convention.
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.