**what a visual !
+++++++++++++
Makes me think of Henrietta Hippo from the New Zoo Review - but it's not quite capturing it...
Posted on 02/20/2010 2:42:51 PM PST by onyx
“According to his radio spots, Ron Paul is the founder of the tea party movement.”
LOL...everyone wants to claim credit...
Ron Paul didn’t despise Reagan, he just disagreed with any foreign interventions or growth of gov’t that was done by Reagan or anyone else.
It’s come to be that conservative is defined by how much one supports foreign interventions rather than how much one supports the constitution. That’s not the way it’s supposed to be.
I’m ex-military too. I must state here that I was NOT in combat but I was in a front line combat role. After I ETS’d my unit went to Iraq. A few people I knew did not come back alive. There’s a different perspective of dying for your homeland vs. dying for a U.N. mandate. It’s hard to feel good about losing your friends to U.N. mandates.
Well, I don't know about that, but I will say that the rumors of Sarah's demise (related to the McCain Senate campaign) have been greatly exaggerated.
Thank you!
“Ron Paul is far more conservative than the RINOS occupying Congress and Senate seats.”
Utter and Udder BS
Total BS
I’d vote for a RINO over Obama before I’d vote for Ron Paul, he’s a nut. (and I friggin hate RINOs)
2009 results:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/cpac-straw-poll-its-a-wide-open-race.php
Mitt Romney 20%
Bobby Jindal 14%
Ron Paul 13%
Sarah Palin 13%
Newt Gingrich 10%
Mike Huckabee 7%
Mark Sanford 4%
Rudy Giuliani 3%
Tim Pawlenty 2%
Charlie Crist 1%
Undecided 9%
With the thought in mind that many of Ron Paul's followers are young, and the rest (with the exception of some 'troofers' and a few apparent crackpots--to be found among almost any candidate's supporters) are those who recognize his strict Constitutional angle on Government, has anyone thought that those who are coming of age this election or did in the last are looking at what has been policy inexorably pushing their generation and that of their children into the poorhouse before they even start working?
I'd be pretty aggravated with the ongoing government bloat which has afflicted us all with a dim economic future and the power grabs which cost hundreds of billions of as yet unearned dollars--regardless of who has been in power in the Congress and the White House.
For those who are just getting their political feet under them, who do not want to be part of the dependency class, it is a bleak landscape of strangling regulations, fouled-up economy, and crushing debt (taxation) which must be crossed to ever become prosperous.
You don't have to be a genius to see the programs which continue to foul that landscape, the vast majority of which are without Constitutional authorization, or which fly in the face of rational interpretation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Kids aren't dumb unless they are relentlessly programmed to be that way, and even then, they'll believe their own lying eyes rather than swallow twelve to sixteen years of crap to the contrary of the evidence before them.
Sure, the lazy will turn to the great Government teat and game the system, but the remainder will want to abolish the Departments and Programs which will ultimately rob them of the fruits of their labors--and which already are robbing them, even before they enter the workforce.
Do I find it strange that Libertarianism is making some serious inroads into that emerging voting bloc? Not at all.
Were it not for the drug issue and a couple of others, I think most Conservatives would recognize that Conservatism (in a strict, originalist sense) and Libertarianism have more in common than most would admit.
Continuing to smear the Libertarians over some fringe elements is much the same as the Left smearing Conservatives by lumping them in with neonazis on the 'right wing'.
Time to quit.
Many of us are darned upset with the way the GOP has continued to throw Conservatives under the bus, election cycle after election cycle. The group of college age has seen it, too, if they are politically aware. They can see what the Democrats have been doing. They can see what the Republicans did NOT do when they had the chance.
No one else will name names and say we should eliminate the Department of Education, the EPA, seriously downsize HHS, cut out the Irs and the Income tax, and hammer Government back within its Constitutional constraints. Who else is saying defense starts at home--with our borders? Who else is saying send the illegals home?
I am not surprised that Ron Paul has support from many younger voters.
All they have to do is talk with Grandma and Grandpa and they will have a good idea of the freedoms they have lost. They want them back, and I don't blame them.
If someone told me that 10,000 people attended ths convention, and that this was the same approximate number that had attended last year, I could through a procees of inductive reasoning told them that Sarah Palin did not attend the event. The reason is that she always draws crowds that are exponentially larger than they would otherwise be. This fact is becoming a sort of political law of physics.
Ron Paul is at least one thing, IMO:
UNELECTABLE...
Things may look larger in your mirror.
Ron Paul has been praised for his stance on economic issues but overall, he’s just weird.
CPAC sounds ..er...different.
* War on drugs is out of control; revert control to states. (Dec 2007)
* Repeal most federal drug laws; blacks are treated unfairly. (Sep 2007)
* Inner-city minorities are punished unfairly in war on drugs. (Sep 2007)
* $500B on War on Drugs since 1970s has been a total failure. (Sep 2007)
* Legalize industrial hemp. (Jan 2007)
* Drug War fosters violence at home & breeds resentment abroad. (Oct 2001)
* Societal inconsistency on alcohol contributes to drug use. (Dec 1987)
* Voted NO on more funding for Mexico to fight drugs. (Jun 2008)
* Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
* Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. (Sep 1998)
* War on Drugs has abused Bill of Rights . (Dec 2000)
* Legalize medical marijuana. (Jul 2001)
* Rated A by VOTE-HEMP, indicating a pro-hemp voting record. (Dec 2003)
* Rated +30 by NORML, indicating a pro-drug-reform stance. (Dec 2006)
* Allow rehabilitated drug convicts get student loans. (Jan 2008)
* Ban federal funding for needle-exchange programs. (Mar 1999)
* Distribute sterile syringes to reduce AIDS and hepatitis. (Jan 2009)
* Sponsored bill letting states legalize industrial hemp. (Apr 2009)
~~~
Cute ...
Only about 2400 out of 10,000 in attendance voted. With some saying this is not an accurate representation.
This seems to beg the question:
Why if other candidates could be voted for, and were on the agenda, why did they fail to vote?
who did the tabulation, ACORN?
Are these people NUTS??
The people who vote at CPAC are usally organized in advance by people who have an interest in nabbing the “CPAC winner” headline. Either people who are almost cult like in devotion or people who are paid. Ron was the first and Romney is the second reason. Everyone else who participates follows their own conscience.
Most people who attend CPAC skip the poll though.
Palin didn’t organize supporters toward this poll and unlike Paul’s supporters I don’t think hers took it upon themselves to rcae down to CPAC to win this poll. It is fairly interesting she came in third without any campaign here.
And no one else can get in the picture. It's too late. We're one year from campaign liftoff for the major players. If Palin doesn't run, it'll be the establishment candidate, probably Romney. It is impossible for fractured conservatives to unite around another candidate. JMO.
Coming out of 1976, Reagan had a huge advantage and had 4 years to further coalesce conservative support. It was STILL touch and go for him to get the nomination right up until the NH primary in 1980. People may not remember how close George HW Bush came to running Reagan out of the race.
“Ron Paul didn’t despise Reagan, he just disagreed with any foreign interventions or growth of gov’t that was done by Reagan or anyone else”
I repeat Paul hated Reagan:
“In 1988 Ron Paul was nominated by the Libertarian Party for president and ran against the Reagan agenda, at one point telling the Dallas Morning News, Reagan was a “dramatic failure” as President. Paul also said, “I want to totally disassociate myself from the Reagan Administration”, Reagan was “a failure, yes, in, in many ways”. Transcript of Paul’s remarks on Meet the Press. Also, see Youtube video of Paul on MTP. “
Sorry, but the guy is a nut, a fruitcake, but not a conservative.
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.