Skip to comments.Rand Paul wins The Washington Times-CPAC 2013 Straw Poll
Posted on 03/16/2013 2:40:59 PM PDT by advance_copy
Marco Rubio takes second place -
Sen. Rand Paul won the 2013 Washington Times-CPAC presidential preference straw poll Saturday, and Sen. Marco Rubio was a close second, easily outdistancing the rest of the field and signaling the rise of a new generation of conservative leaders who will take the Republican Party into the 2016 election.
Mr. Paul won 25 percent of the vote, and Mr. Rubio collected 23 percent. Former Sen. Rick Santorum was third with just 8 percent, New JerseyGov. Chris Christie who was not invited to speak at the three-day Conservative Political Action Conference was next with 7 percent, and Rep. Paul D. Ryan, the GOPs vice presidential nominee last year, was fifth with 6 percent.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
In 2008, Rubio blocked a number of patriotic immigration bills in the Florida legislature. The Miami Herald reported:
“Florida lawmakers looking to pass bills targeted at curbing illegal immigration faced one major hurdle this sessionconvincing South Florida legislators, who hold key leadership positions in the House and Senate, to support their cause. Without the backing of House Speaker Marco Rubio, the first Cuban-American to hold the position, the bills failed to get any major play in their committees. Six weeks into the session, a three-hour workshop was held on the six House bills, but even that failed to produce its desired intent of combining the bills into one larger committee bill.
“’Speaker Rubio outlined the priorities of the session and this didn’t fall under that list,’ said [Rep. David] Rivera, one of Rubio’s lieutenants.”
When Arizona enacted SB 1070, Rubio wrote:
“Arizona’s policy shows the difficulty and limitations of states trying to act piecemeal to solve what is a serious federal problem I think aspects of the law, especially that dealing with ‘reasonable suspicion,’ are going to put our law enforcement officers in an incredibly difficult position. It could also unreasonably single out people who are here legally, including many American citizens.”
Rubio eventually flip-floppedafter the conservative grassroots embraced Arizona. But he still made sure to qualify that we need “a legal immigration system that works” (a.k.a. more legal immigration) and that we must “Understand that what Arizona is facing is different from anything Florida has ever faced... Frankly, very few states in the country can imagine what that’s like.” (i.e. no other state should consider enacting a similar bill.
OK. Point well taken. That's not good. McLame had the same problem - not wanting to close the doors before revamping immigration.
Thanks for the info!!!!
Keeping my eye on Rand Paul. He did vote for Kerry and Hagel...reason being he believed he could block Brennan with his filibuster. I never did grasp the logic as all 3 have been confirmed.
Was it all a show and an attempt to set the table for a presidential run?
“Anyone saying he is ineligible is a kook”
Look, Obama’s mother was born in the US and yet he still had to produce a birth certificate to prove that he was eligible. Cruz was born in Canada. If he is eligible then anybody is eligible.
Rand Paul is an isolationist and a liberal on social issues.
Like his old man, he has no chance of ever being a power player in the Republican Party.
“Rand Paul is an isolationist and a liberal on social issues.”
BS. Check post #143.
“he has no chance of ever being a power player in the Republican Party.”
He is already a power player in the Republican party.
There is nobody else.
Has he learned from father and got more polished but has the same whacky views or is he a libertarian posing as a republican?
I guess time will tell but I heard him taling about homosexual amrriage and that got the liberal happy, heard a little about illegals and then while thinking he would vote for Kerry and Hagel he could block Brennan it just was a side show in the end.
Like I said time will tell and we’ll see if he has the same nutty views as his dad.
I said a long time ago, that Ted Cruz comes across as Marco Rubio on steroids, or a totally unvarnished version of Rubio-—before Cruz came along, I’m sure a lot of us were pushing ourselves to embrace Rubio, on little real evidence, wanting to believe he was tougher than he really was: then along came Cruz, who actually fulfilled that “fantasy”.
Whatever other reasons Cruz might have only got 4% (and Paul and Rubio “won” with a total of nearly half the vote in a field of dozens) , I think the main one is that there’s
a kind of collective turning away from Cruz as being too
abrasive and too confident in that abrasiveness: here is where the “NEW” face of the GOP-e asserts itself: Cruz is not the face that they want to present to the American public.
They accept him provisionally as a hitman, but not as a figurehead/candidate.
As long as Jeb Bush isn’t at the top of the polls, I’m happy.
That’s just not true and way off-base. People born to two non-American citizens in a foreigen country are NOT natural born citizens, so it’s not true that “anybody is eligible.” It just so happens that Cruz’s mother was an American. Thus he was an American citizen immediately upon birth. He did not have to be naturalized. Thus he is a natural-born citizen.