Skip to comments.Republicans throw up a rival for Sarah Palin (CPAC/GayPAC's Ron Paul)
Posted on 02/21/2010 12:15:05 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
SARAH Palin may be a darling of the political Right, but another outspoken critic of big government has emerged as the favourite of many mainstream US conservatives for the Republican Party's presidential candidate in 2012.
Ron Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas known for his strong libertarian views, won the annual straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington yesterday with 31 per cent of the 2400 votes cast.
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who has topped the poll three times previously, finished second with 22 per cent.
Ms Palin, the Republican vice- presidential candidate in 2008, came a distant third with just 7 per cent.
The decision of many conservative faithful to pick Mr Paul, 74, was a surprise and is not necessarily a good guide after John McCain overtook Mr Romney to win the Republican nomination for the last election.
But the choice of the influential gathering of conservatives confirms that the Republican machine is shifting further to the Right as confidence rises about performing well in mid-term congressional elections in November.
It could also indicate support for Ms Palin within the Republican establishment is not as strong as some of her backers would like to think.
Results of the CPAC straw poll were announced shortly before popular Fox News commentator Glenn Beck gave the keynote speech and received huge applause for his attack on "progressivism" as a cancer that needed to be cut out of the US political system.
While directing most of his attack at the Democratic Party, Beck took aim at Republicans, too. Acknowledging he was a recovering alcoholic, Beck said the party had to admit that it had a problem. To cheers in a packed hotel ballroom, the TV host said: "Hello, my name is the Republican Party and I have a problem. I'm addicted to spending and big government."
As a summit for American conservatives, the conference was a prime opportunity to brand President Barack Obama a socialist and attack his handling of the economy and national security.
But the annual event that started when Richard Nixon was president was much more - a gathering of people who believe they are on the march back to power.
Newt Gingrich, a former Republican speaker of the House of Representatives and possible presidential candidate, made a big entrance yesterday with the pop song Eye of the Tiger blaring. Mr Gingrich, whose book To Save America is due out soon, predicted the Democrats would lose their majorities in the Senate and House at this year's mid-term elections, and that Mr Obama would lose the 2012 election.
A surprise guest at the three-day conference - amid chants of "run, Cheney, run" - was former vice president Dick Cheney.
He dismissed any chance of him running for president.
Mr Paul ran for president in 2008 but was never considered a serious contender.
One disadvantage for Ms Palin in yesterday's straw poll was that she was not present. She was followed in the poll by Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty on 6 per cent. Indiana congressman Mike Pence scored 5 per cent. Mr Gingrich tied with former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee on 4 per cent.
Yes, republicans did throw up. That part is correct.
I’ll try to put the demographics up on my web site when I get home; this vote was primarily the kids.
Is it Ron Paul or Rupaul? With the fagging up of CPAC, I dont know the difference anywmore.
Ron Paul is a NUT, no... Ron Paul is a BIG NUT!
However, many have missed this Factiod: Ron Paul will be 77 years old in 2012. Sarah Palin is supporting Ron Paul's son, Rand Paul, for congress when nobody else will come within 100 miles of him. I wonder which candidate will be receiving Ron Paul's support in 2012.
From here on, CPAC to be referred to by it’s proper name:
The mentally stable Republicans will not support Paul.
Earth to Paulistinians:
A 77 year old is not going to win the 2012 Presidential Election. It’s not going to happen.
Reagan was almost 74 in 1984 but he was an extremely popular sitting president.
Ron Paul got how many votes in 2008, total? He’s going to go from that to the presidency in 2012... at age 77?
No wonder the Libertarians are so big on legalizing drugs. They need them to keep their addled fantasies alive.
The reason Ron Paul won the straw poll at CPAC “It’s the economy stupid”
Waste of straws.
The headline shows that such an exercise can be cited for spin.
*throwing up a rival*
The reason Ron Paul won the straw poll is because he had a booth at CPAC where he registered attendees to vote and Palin didn't.
Admittedly, other people in the straw poll also had booths at the even where they registered attendees to vote also but in the final analysis, only about 2,500 of the 10,000 or so attendees voted.
In other words, this straw poll is a straw dog.
A straw dog poll.
Palin has never had strong support from the Republican establishment. The only use they have for her is to try to usurp the enthusiasm of her followers.
CPAC is a Republican Establishment event open to all establishment insiders. It is not a conservative event.
Take out Paul and leave Romney in as a potential candidate then I think this straw poll basically says of those that chose to vote that there isn’t a real front runner at this time.
Romney ... 22%
Site says 2395 votes cast
Brad is either completely clueless or an paid agent provocateur
Ron Paul is not a rival to Palin, only in Paulbots feeble mind
NO POLL is trustworthy - we need to look at election results! VA, NJ, MA all say the same: STOP SPENDING OUR MONEY!
I sort of agree with that - but with a qualifier. I think Ron Paul's understanding of The Fed and the corruption of the money & banking system is spot on. But his stay at home, mind your own business and only respond if attacked foreign policy leaves me cold. If we had followed that policy in the 40's we would all be speaking German right now. Or Russian. With Ron Paul in charge during WW2 we might even be speaking Japanese. After all what do we care about what happens to some little island in the Pacific?
Thus my name for those who support Ron Paul as being "Paul-tards."
Yeah, like we are going to vote for Ron Paul the idiot instead of Sarah. Those of you who want to vote for this idiot go ahead, I won’t be joining you.
I can just see Ron Paul's Presidential Tagline:
Ron Paul for President: Cuz kooks are people too!
Younger libertarians were more heavily represented than the Conservative, mature American backbone.
The Australian hasn't got enough reporters in the US to properly asses Palin's influence, but I don't think they're bashing her here.
You will do as Sarah tells you...and when Sarah sits out 2012 and endorses Ron Paul, just as she endorsed Rand in the Kentucky Senate rate, you will fall in line.
From the looks of things, and the angst engendered by such polling results, the GOP better hurry up and pony up some worthwhile conservative candidates.
You are exactly correct .. and also there was the fact that only TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT even voted in the straw poll.
If CPAC is going to have a “straw poll” then it should require everybody to participate.
Translation: Paul's people have the ground game, motivation, and organizational skills to win, while Palin's amen corner is too busy attending carefully controlled paid speeches.
LOL on the title.
CPAC has become a joke.
Were all the votes counted?
Or more cheating for Team Mitt Romneycare?
I like the people on the bottom of the list better than those on the top. The GOP again, has very little to show for.
CPAC NEEDS AN ENEMA!
Not a Palin demographic.
I am excited about the future of the GOP if that's the case. Maybe in another 10 years or so the GOP can return to its limited government / America first views.
Hmmmm ..?? If Mitt had cheated - I’M SURE HE WOULD HAVE WON .. or why bother.
Seems to me there’s a lot of Mitt-bashing on FR - and quite frankly, I don’t like it. If you have some evidence against him - fine - but to just smear him by accusing him of cheating when there’s no evidence to support it is stupid.
And .. I’m not a Mitt supporter either .. I just don’t like it. I didn’t like it when the dems were doing it to Bush and I don’t like it now for Mitt.
Actually, I don’t think people are ready to make a choice right now. There are a few good candidates out there .. or there could be somebody out of the blue who could capture the nomination.
Since most of the voters were between 18 and 34, I’d guess they’re just now getting involved in politics and it’s easy for them to get distracted by the “no-war” mantra.
If people have a brain, they already know that WAR is a necessary part of remaining free .. and if you say NO WAR ever, then you’re setting yourself up to be attacked because you have already told the enemy you won’t fight back.
I think that’s kinda stupid.
FReepers need to chill. Ron Paul isn't going to win the GOP nomination, but he's bringing new, young fiscal conservatives to the cause.
FR is still for fiscal conservatism, isn't it? Or are fiscal conservatives no longer welcome here?
I don’t care for the Mitt-bashing either, but it pales in comparison to the Paul-bashing...but that’s OK, everyone has the right to speak their mind.
I myself don’t know a whole lot about Mitt’s opinions, but I doubt of he would be nearly be as consistent in upholding his Constotutional Oath of Office that Rep. Paul would be & has been over the years.
I think Mitt’s a good guy, I guess most women would consider him to be a hunk, & he’s got a great voice, IMO.
They've lost all credibility in my eyes.
I was under the impression that FR stood for these values too. Judging by the hysteria, evidently not.
You’re absolutely right about your WAR comment, but the questions that are not being asked or discussed include:
Why aren’t we using our military as a DEFENSIVE weapon rather than an offensive one before the war begins...rather than using our military might to “spread democracy” across the globe?
Why don’t we seal our borders & return to the non-interventionist foreign policies that were used by the Founding Fathers — & then once getting involved in a war, KILL THE ENEMY, & take no prisoners?
Well .. I have to challenge your statement.
One of the main things the President’s oath says is that he will defend America against all enemies foreign and domestic, which is his primary responsibility as President.
Since Ron does not believe in going to war .. then he does not keep that oath already (since he’s not willing to defend us against all enemies) .. and I would not, therefore, ever vote for him.
I’m not bashing Ron - he’s entitled to his opinion, but he’s wrong about WAR.
Thank you...it’s nice hearing a positive comment & not having to deal w/ the anger & bitterness that have poisoned the hearts of the PaulHaters once in a blue moon. :-)
That statement is absolutely false. If it was true, what would be the point of even having a Department of Defense? Even President Reagan praised Rep. Paul for his views on the military. Rep. Paul had a respectable career as a flight surgeon in the US Aif Force, too.
Because DEMOCRACY - once established - keeps the enemy from having a hiding place from which to attack us.
It works like this. When a country has a leader hell bent on killing your citizens - and attacks them all over the world .. isn’t it better to get rid of that leader and help the citizens of his country have a better life .. and you gain an ally instead of an enemy ..??
If your only goal is DEFENSE .. you’re going to be sitting around waiting for the enemy to attack you .. I don’t think that’s a very good plan.
I agree with sealing the borders .. because as it is now, the terrorists are taking full advantage of the fact that they are so fluid.
However, it’s unrealistic to believe we can live in America and seal ourselves in and have no foreign relations at all .. that just totally will not and should not happen. We live on the same globe .. and we need to have allies and friends around the world. WWII could not have been won without the allies and friends around the world who helped.
To say that we could have a policy of “us four and no more” is totally irresponsible. That means we would have let Hitler ravage the world and we would not have lifted a finger ..?? We would have let Saddam continue to kill our soldiers all over the world by blowing them up .. and we would not lift a finger to stop it.
Do you really think that would have been a good plan ..??
I stopped posting on here years ago when it became BushBot central. Every now and then something makes me poke my head back in to see if this place has become any saner.
Ron Paul is as clear a litmus test on limited government as we'll get in our lifetime. He has a pro-freedom resume as long as the entire rest of the GOP field put together. "Not conservative"? Heh, yeah. Hey, tell me, who did you guys nominate in 2008 again?
I'm quite happy to watch from the sidelines and wait for the GOP to admit that Paul is right. And if they don't... I'll find my freedom with or without them. I would just prefer with.
Our nation is a REPUBLIC, not a democracy. The latter is not a stable for of government. When you read the Constitution, you will also find out that one the responsibilities of the fedgov is to ensure that the States have a republican form of government, not a democratic one (& I'm not referring to political parties, either). The Founding Fathers opposed democracy, & James Madison criticized it in paper #5 of The Federalist Papers. On the other hand, if you read The Communist Manifesto, you will read that an important goal of Karl Marx was to make the world "safe for democracy".
Where did you get that silly idea that I would like to "...seal ourselves in and have no foreign relations at all"? ROTFLMAO! Read paper #45 of The Federalist Papers & you will learn that our relations w/ foreign governments are among the 1st & foremost responsibilities of the fedgov, for cryin' out loud! What was that Thomas Jefferson phrase, I don't remember it exactly: "friendship & trade w/ ALL nations, entangling alliances w/ NONE"?