Skip to comments.Rand Paul and Tea Party Victory In CPAC poll Means Little For 2016
Posted on 03/17/2013 5:30:34 PM PDT by drewhEdited on 03/17/2013 5:36:51 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
CPAC had sought to attract young people this year and they succeeded. NRA President David Keene spoke about the changing demographics of the Republican Party earlier in the day.
Fully 50% of all votes cast by people under 30 in GOP primaries in 2012 were for Ron Paul. This statistic elicited cheers from the crowd. The results make more sense in light of this fact and the demographic make up of the voters: Ron Paul was virtually the only GOP candidate to reach out to college students and young people in 2012.
(Excerpt) Read more at communities.washingtontimes.com ...
what is the barf alert for?
barf alert? It means absolutely nothing. A few hundred votes and you can vote more than once AND it’s 2013? It is utterly meaningless.
In the 60's and 70's, these were the Pat Paulson and Ralph Nader voters....now they vote for the "Beam Me Up Scottie" Party (R. Paul)
Yup. Just keep spitting on the only new blood in the party. That’s worked so well recently.
Rand Paul is the best out there right now. His dad gets fruity on some issues, but Rand fits the bill. He’s leading the party right now away from the complete disaster than the DC elite are going.
It seems FR has swung strong for Rand Paul....but Im not on the band wagon either. He daddy is totally nuts and both have the same followers....
>> loonatic fringe
The “loonatic fringe” favored Republicans in 2012. And possibly a repressed conservative vote that swung the results in Obama’s favor.
The ambiguous R. barely makes a point.
I know they're out there.
God forbid it’s the likes of a libertarian that takes a stand against Marxism.
I understand when Paul goes off on stuff like about the Civil Rights Act he is looking at it from the strictly libertarian standpoint (racism is bad but we don’t need government to interfere in a private business, the market and public opinion will do fine on its own). He stuck on the principle of a business owner having control of his business, and that our speech can trump the speech of a business owner via boycotting a business with a policy like segregation. But has has also established himself as a better politician and a more pragmatic, flexible libertarian than the father, or a libertarian leaning Republican if you will....I am confused where the hard line is drawn sometimes with him.
Sounds like sour grapes.
I like some of Ron Paul’s ideas, but total legalization of drugs is not a sound thing nor is having a completely isolationist foreign policy. So I don’t agree with him on everything.
Of course as I found in another thread, even mentioning the word “libertarian” on here tends to be like waving a red cape at a bull. There was even an infuriated moderator on there telling me I deserved to be banned from the site.
Why is it that big tent republicans tell conservatives that they are stupid for not embracing scott walker, olympia snowe, and arlen specter, but as soon as an anti-establishment conservative comes along (that would loosen the grip of establishment politics) the big tent republicans all-of-a-sudden want a smaller tent?
Is this the political class (powerful government liberals) just trying to play politics?
Hey how ‘bout McCain/Boehner 2016?
That will really capture the voter’s imagination and help set the country on the right path.
(/throw-up in my mouth)
I know that Barry Goldwater used to oppose the CRM because he believed it should be a state issue. You could split hairs on that all day long. I generally believe also that social welfare programs like SS are best moved out of the federal government’s control and put at the state level, although it’s probably impossible at this point to remove things like that because they’re so completely entrenched.
It does mean little. There just aren’t enough of us. Generations of leftist education and media have come to fruition. Zeitgeist. Yuri Bezmanov.
Have been to State GOP Conventions several times before. At one time I was GOP County Chairman when I lived out in NM.
Made a special point to go to Ron Paul's gathering at the Convention because of my curiosity concerning the appeal to the young voting segment.
There are some issues that both Ron and Rand are spot on about. Many that they are so far out there that it is amazing.
I had flirted with libertarianism for several years when I was young. Read some of the contemporary libertarian writers and it resonated. But when I actually saw the people who were at the time actually “in” the Libertarian Party (Capital L) I was left cold.
Ron Paul has a young following which appears to be college age and up to 30 that is really fired up, very organized and orchestrated. Ron plays to that like a Rock Star. There are many who are against any drug regulation, against any foreign aid or foreign military presence and an anti-Israel element.
The element that I found missing was the traditional Christian voter element. I saw almost no Evangelical support and no Jewish support.
I am not sure how closely Rand Paul's attitudes track with his father.
Those who love Liberty (to the fullest) are not the same as those who call themselves Libertarians.
Like Father...Like Son
Rand Paul is Amnesty Liberal. If you are not tough on the border and have the spine to deport Illegal Aliens, you are not getting this conservative’s vote.
Our national security begins at the border, and being weak on that issue is being weak on national security. rand Paul talks a good game, but he is no better on national security than his father was
True: it’s who brings in the votes in 2014 that will matter!
Rand Paul is in a good position to help in the 2014 elections. I assume he realizs that will be his test.
“Ron Paul has a young following which appears to be college age and up to 30 that is really fired up, very organized and orchestrated. Ron plays to that like a Rock Star. There are many who are against any drug regulation, against any foreign aid or foreign military presence and an anti-Israel element.”
Oh, I agree that libertarianism is becoming big among young people and the old GOP hacks like Fred Barnes and Bill Kristol and their kind are dinosaurs headed for the tar pit. This last election was the final proof that the moderate country club Republicans have failed.
In 30 years time, these young libertarians are going to dominate the political scene.
Ayn Rand - Jewish
Robert Nozick - Jewish
Murray Rothbard - Jewish
Ludwig von Mises - Jewish
Milton Friedman - Jewish
Not only are there Jewish intellectual leaders among libertarians, they kept the philosophy active when it was far less popular than now.
Young people understand Wall Street capitalism is BS, and big gov Dems is BS. Rand Paul represents the third way. Small gov, liberty and suspicious eye on the evil schemers of Wall Street. America has more problems internally that needs to be solved and the bankrupt mentality of empire America must be put away and never to be pursued again. God gave us two big oceans, plenty of resources, freedom and innovation. Use it, stay home and we will prosper. Our enemies have too many neighbors to deal with before their armies can cross two oceans to occupy us.
The problem with "libertarian" is one might think it does not value the Constitution. But the Constitution is an anti-government document, creating a strictly limited government - "individual freedom" is what the Constitution is all about. The Constitution was created to protect freedom by instituting an expressed and intended limited federal government. If I had to qualify my being a libertarian, I would call myself a Constitutional libertarian.
Not as nuts as the follows of the current (p)resident.
“If I had to qualify my being a libertarian, I would call myself a Constitutional libertarian.”
That is more-or-less what I believe. Barry Goldwater used to say “If the Constitution doesn’t explicitly state that Congress can do X, then we don’t do it. Case closed.”
It is a pity that those of us on FR who do believe in limited government and following the Constitution are turned into monsters with horns who want legalized drugs and random sex in public.
He has SOME Conservative issues in his corner, but the far-out-in-left-field of his Father permeates his positions.
I'm with you....wacko fringe ala Ross Perot on a LOT of issues.
” Rand Paul is the best out there right now. His dad gets fruity on some issues, but Rand fits the bill. Hes leading the party right now away from the complete disaster than the DC elite are going.”
I don’t have to like everything he stands for to be glad that he’s standing for something.
The GOP elite is all too happy to make a big show of opposing Obama and then rolling over. I’m glad we have at least one Senator who won’t play that game.
Yeah; ANYONE who is for free drug use and sex deviancy promotion is a vote-getter to young people.
ANYONE who wants to reign in the out-of-control societal stench of immorality is a no-go.
As long as drug legalization is supported, they'd vote for Lucifer himself.
Rand already has basically in hand a winning coalition of conservatives and honest liberals that are absolutely won over with his “simple and creative” policies on fiscal issues and civil liberties. What he needs to do to win is basically to stay as far away as possible from ideologically pure declarations about non-issues when he is clueless and tongue-tied about the real-world effects of implementing such proposals.
“Rand already has basically in hand a winning coalition of conservatives and honest liberals that are absolutely won over with his simple and creative policies on fiscal issues and civil liberties. What he needs to do to win is basically to stay as far away as possible from ideologically pure declarations about non-issues when he is clueless and tongue-tied about the real-world effects of implementing such proposals.”
I agree; he needs to work on some things. Sometimes you must sacrifice ideology to practical reality.
And incidentally, I’m starting to suspect that some of the people in here like this guy traditional1 are actually DNC moles posting here to make conservatives look stupid.
You want them to vote for O2 next time?
Sorry I took these out of sequence to your listing. Some I was not sure about. Not a single practicing Jew in the bunch. Jewish by birth and family, but not by religion.
“Ayn Rand was born in Russia in 1905 to secular Jewish parents.”
“Ayn Rand is noteworthy for her atheism and uncompromising opposition to religion.”
“Murray Rothbard, Mises student, was born in the Bronx in 1926, to immigrants from the Jewish leftist sub-culture of Poland. “I grew up in a Communist culture,” he recalled.”
Robert Nozick (November 16, 1938 January 23, 2002)
“He was born in Brooklyn, the son of a Jewish entrepreneur from Russia. He was married to the American poet Gjertrud Schnackenberg.”
Ludwig von Mises
“Although one of his grandfathers had been a rabbi, Mises was not a synagogue attendee. He was an agnostic”
An Exchange: My Correspondence With Milton Friedman About God, Economics, Evolution And Values
Do you believe in God? And what, if anything, does God have to do with economics? He replied, in a handwritten note on my original letter:
I am an agnostic. I do not believe in God, but I am not an atheist, because I believe the statement, There is a god does not admit of being either confirmed or rejected. I do not believe God has anything to do with economics. But values do.
Can I assume you are against a TOTAL war on drugs as well?
Where would YOU draw the line?
Gotta agree here.
We'd rather be Praised into Hell;
than Rebuked into Heaven.
No. We most definitely should not legalize drugs.
Ron Paul wasn’t even involved this year and their shooting at him? LOL! (And I don’t even like RuPaul)
That said, I will NEVER vote for a RINO, or Whack-o, regardless of the Party they supposedly represent.
ANYONE who decides it's okay to ignore Criminal Acts, to pander for their votes, is no better than the garbage we have in Congress and the White Hut right now.
YOU are spot-on.
Well, a religious Jew, almost by definition, could not be a libertarian!
No one I’ve ever met, in their personal life, meets someone identified as a Jew and doesn’t consider them a Jew unless they ‘practice’. Karl Marx, born, raised and probably died a Lutheran, is ubiquitously identified as a Jew.
There are many atheist and agnostic Jews around who take offense when someone says they are not a ‘real Jew’.
I contend the people you see absent in the Libertarian circles are those who are religious Christians and Jews.
Libertarianism views faith, morals and sexual orientation as being unimportant and unnessary elements of government. Our founders understood that our form of government would only work with a moral people. That practice evolves from an honest religious belief.
None at ALL?
How do we WIN the War on Drugs?
I agree 100%.
Although Des Moines, Iowa, radio talk show host Jan Mickelson claims to be a ‘Christian libertarian.
I'd venture to say that YOUR perfect candidate would probably not be mine.
With that as a given; I will assume that ALL candidates will have at LEAST one area of Whackiness that will be a negative with one voter or another.
So my question is:
What level of wackiness could YOU accept in MY candidate and still be able to vote for him? or her...
“I contend the people you see absent in the Libertarian circles are those who are religious Christians and Jews.”
Now, the whole problem with them is that they have this strawman view that libertarians support no-holds-barred random drugs and sex. Which is of course completely untrue. It is also very unfortunate that they believe this because one of the principle elements of a free society is the right to practice one’s religion without interference.
Therefore by opposing them, the religious Jews and Christians play into the hand of the statist left, their absolute enemy.
I cannot find that article in the Constitution that permits the Federal government to ban plants. At least when the Feds banned turning plants into alcohol they first passed an amendment granting the government this power. I would think any constitutionalist would oppose the Drug War on the principle the federal government doesn't have the power it exercises.
When you add in the erosion of liberties that has followed in the wake of the Drug War, constitutionalist opposition should be even stronger.
against any foreign aid or foreign military presence and an anti-Israel element.
I don't really understand people who want to raise American's taxes or debt to shovel money to other countries, or provide their defense so they can spend more money on their welfare states, or that equate (or even subordinate) another nation's interests with America's interests. No other nation, Israel included, has a claim on American taxpayers. If there are self described conservatives that want to 'support' Israel, I think they should reach in their own damn pockets instead of encumbering American taxpayers.
” - - - 54% of this poll approved of the job Congress was doing. - - - “
Duh, were those polled all “Low Information Voters?”
Read more: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/conservative-political-action-committee-cpac-2013-/2013/mar/17/rand-paul-and-tea-party-victory-cpac-poll-means-li/#ixzz2NrRoz4tR
Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter
Drug use is not a victimless crime. It affects others. (not limited to Marijuana)
The Paul’s views on foreign relations are nieve. I think trade with enemies needs to be rethought, but no foreign relationship with friendly countries is a mistake.
Like it or not, Christians and Jews are forever intertwined. Ignoring that is the point that bothers me the most about the Pauls. As a nation we never had an established religion, but we were largely a Christian nation. That contributed greatly to the stability and honesty in government. Few nations have ever approached that. Poland is an ally that comes close. Israel is also a great ally.
The destiny of the Christians in the West and the Jews in Israel are forever tied together. We look for the same event but from a different perspective. (Einstein’s relativity is good example)