Ron Paul Wins CPAC

Discussion in 'Politics' started by madanthonywayne, Feb 25, 2010.

  1. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    Ron Paul won the straw poll at the recent Conservative Political Action Commitee meeting. I didn't support him the last time around mainly due to his dovish foriegn policy positions. However, as I watch our economy implode and see Obama doing the exact opposite of what I think needs to be done, Ron Paul is looking better and better. Apparently, I'm not alone in that assessment:
    In the real world, Paul’s speech was mostly about fiscal probity and saving the U.S. from a debt-driven dollar collapse. Paul applied principles of limited government and restrained spending to a place where most Republicans fear to tread: foreign policy. He stressed the vital importance of the free exchange of ideas, including a long shout-out to Eugene Debs, the socialist leader jailed by Democratic god Woodrow Wilson for saying the wrong things, and freed by Republican President Warren Harding.

    Paul talked to the assembled activists of the unity of liberty, including the liberty to eat and smoke what you want. He harkened back to old Republican icons (such as President Dwight D. Eisenhower with his military-industrial complex warnings) to give his constitutionalist libertarian version of conservatism a usable past. His talk was rambly, perhaps not ready for prime time, but united by a bracing vision of a government that did only what its Constitution intended it to do. This makes him radical indeed.

    Another interesting tidbit:
    Neocon intellectual chieftain Bill Kristol thinks Paul’s win means nothing; why, Kristol pointed out on Fox News, the majority of those CPAC kids are under 25! Surely, crazy fads sweeping the young and politically motivated have no significance for a political party's future, right?​

    So much for conservatism being the bastion of old, white guys.
    In 2007, the Paulites were an oppositional force trying to submarine the GOP's commitment to the war on terror, thus threatening traditional conservatives. Today, libertarians and conservatives have come together against Obama's endless expansion of the State, with Ron Paul supporters supplying creative organizing tactics and boots on the ground.

    ….in terms of grassroots organization, Paul supporters are some of the best—if not the best—that we have. The iconography of the tea party movement is heavily libertarian (think the Gadsden Flag) and that's no coincidence. If you broke down the organizers and even those in attendance [at CPAC], you'd find more than your fair share of Ron Paul supporters. This is a categorical shift that's happened in the last year.

    Victory in a CPAC straw poll (which belonged to Mitt Romney the past three years, smacked down this time with 22 percent to Paul’s 31) does not mean national leadership, the nomination, or the presidency. But beyond their affection for Paul himself—the most consistently and radically pro-liberty political figure of any significance on the Republican scene—a poll of CPAC attendees reveals encouraging facts about their general political attitudes: 80 percent claimed their “most important goal is to promote individual freedom by reducing the size and scope of government and its intrusion into the lives of its citizens” versus a mere 9 percent whose most important goal was to “promote traditional values” and 7 percent to “guarantee American safety at home and abroad regardless of the cost or the size of government.”

    I predicted last September that Ron Paul could well be playing a Goldwater in 1960 role—the first stirrings of a strongly anti-government coalition whose electoral effectiveness won’t become manifest for a while—and the CPAC victory is an encouraging sign in that direction. The usual caveats apply about the unknowability of the future, and the generally predictable pusillanimity when it comes to liberty of both the voters and politicians who have tended to decide the Republican Party’s direction.

    Still, it does feel like something is happening, and we don’t know what it is.......​
    Reason​

    Yes. Something is happening. Something big. The public has had its fill of Obama's big government ideas and deficit spending in his brief one year in office. Real conservative ideas have never been more popular. CPAC has been taken over by Libertarians! There may well be some hope for the US after all.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    Ron paul won't get the nod in 2012 unless some serious changes happen in the republican party and though I don't think paul would be good for the country he could move the republican party into something healthier than it has been.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    Serious changes are coming. The public is riled up like never before, and Washington seems to be completely ineffectual and tone deaf to boot.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    Its career politics. remove that and most of the problems would disappear
     
  8. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    Ron Paul is a hero. I live just outside his 14th congressional district, too.

    He's exactly what the Founding Fathers would have envisioned as a perfect president, and he's exactly what the country needs.
     
  9. clusteringflux Version 1. OH! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,766
    Thanks for posting this.

    I voted for Paul as a write in 2008.

    Mad, as far as Foreign Policy, one needs to remember It's not about being dovish but rather seeing DEFENSE resourses (as in defending our borders) better spent. As far as the War on Terror one has to wonder after all the money and expanded government programs have we gotten our money's worth in terms of making THIS country safer.
    For instance,today is it more or less difficult to carry out a makeshift terror attack in Iraq or New York (or any other American city)? The fact that one can even ponder this question tells us that something is seriously wrong with this picture.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2010
  10. clusteringflux Version 1. OH! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,766
    Paul in office would be forced to relax his efforts in regards to his ideology, just as every president is.But just the fact that he believes the constitution is a relevant document to modern issues would be refreshing change IMO.
     
  11. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    First, Ron Paul is the only conservative politician who has not been bought and paid for by special interests and as such deserves some respect. He is a man who is true to his beliefs. If anyone thinks that if he is elected it is going to be back to business as usual is going to be in for a big suprise.

    The thing I like about Ron Paul is that he does not participate in the Republican double speak. That said, winning only 33 percent of the CPAC straw vote does not make him a major player in the conservative/Republican movement.

    Three, I know Republicans like to talk about how Obama has expanded government. I would like to hear how Obama has expanded government influence and control especially when you compare Obama to the previous Republican administration which was responsible for the largest expansion of entitlement programs since the creation of Medicare forty years ago.

    The problem with Ron Paul is that his economic policies have been throughly debunked. And there is not an economist worth his salt who would support Ron Paul. Ron Paul is the guy who wants to get rid of the Federal Reserve. That is like going back to the stoneage. The Federal Reserve is the US central bank. Every modern industrial nation in the world has a central bank, and they have a central bank for good reasons.

    So while I support Ron Paul on minimalist intervention into our private lives by government especially on social issues, he has big problems when it comes to economic and tax policy. And he fails to address the core issue we face today which is special interest domination in Washington. Those special interests are the very reason Republicans have been acting so daffy in Washington.
     
  12. sandy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,926
    Paul is an interesting character. I like him. I like most of his ideas. The problem is he can't win. America will never elect someone who loooks like him. Sad but true. If he gets a major makeover he may have a chance. Most people just think he's weird like Dennis Kucinich. This is an image he needs to shed.
    Oh, and Romney won 2007. Look how that turned out for him.
     
  13. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Very true. I think Romney or Palin will get the GOP nomination in 2012.
     
  14. clusteringflux Version 1. OH! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,766


    Sorry, Joe. You've been debunked. Watch and weep while Paul's advisor calls the financial collapse in 2006. Expanding war and the spineless retraction shy Federal Reserve is what's going to send us back to the stoneage.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IU6P...BF1F06C42&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=2
     
  15. sandy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,926
    Unless someone awesome pops out of nowhere (like Barack Hussein Obama did for the liberals), those two may be our only choices. I would support a Romney-Palin ticket. Not so sure about the other way around.
     
  16. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Only in your dreams Clusteringflux.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Shiff does not call the financial collapse of 2008-2009 nor does he even address or identify the causes of that recession. Two Shiff may be an economic advisor to Ron Paul, but he is not a credible economist. He has a BS and is a stockbroker by trade. He does not do economic research. He is now more of a politico than anything else.

    Now here is where I agee with Shiff, the American economy does need to grow organically. It cannot continue to be consumer only economy...which is the road it is on. It has to produce things or services of value. But that was not the cause of the 2008-2009 recession. And the solution to that problem is not laissez faire.

    Keep trying Clusteringflux and I will keep smiling.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Ron Paul is very extreme in some of his views, and even as a conservative I have a hard time supporting him. He is my rep in Texas, and I went to a campaign event for him and asked him a question about federally funding sciences. His response was pretty stock, and about what you'd expect: if the public wants it, then they'll support it. But it doesn't really work that way, no matter how low taxes are. And the financial downswing just exacerbated that---I'd be willing to bet that charitable contributions are down across the board, and they'll stay down. Anyway, I voted for the Democrat in that race (2000? maybe 1998?) because I didn't like Paul.

    On the other hand, it is true that Barack Obama had the most liberal voting record in all of Congress. This is what made me weary of him in the first place. He has shown a good tendency, though, to work towards the middle. He obviously has a leftward bent on his policies, but it's not the ultra liberal Senator from Illinois, it's the left-leaning, rational president. I don't agree with all of his policies, but I can acknowledge this, at least.

    Anyway, if Ron Paul can work towards the center as Obama has, and add a right-leaning vision to all of that, I'd be a bit more willing to change my mind about him.
     
  18. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    That's what caused the financial collapse?

    Wasn't everybody thinking the same thing in 2006?
     
  19. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    I don't see Ron Paul doing that any time soon. On the right, you cannot move towards the center until after you have the nomination. I think most people probably see Ron Paul as you do.
     
  20. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Maybe, maybe not.

    I would have said the same thing about Obama in 2007. And if you ask people like ice and Tiassa, who are died-in-the-wool liberals, they're pretty pissed off at what Obama has done so far. I kind of hoped that Hillary Clinton would win, for the reason that she seemed to be a more centerist candidate.

    One thing I DO know is that I saw a TON of people campaigning for Ron Paul in 2007 when he was seeking the Republican bid. I think more people came up to me in Columbus about Ron Paul before the nomination that people who came up to me about Barack Obama during the election.

    Americans seem to be energized by what he says. A friend of mine, a self-described anarchist and Obama voter, LOVES Ron Paul, because, in his words, he is a ``strict constitutionalist''. Maybe my friend is confused, but maybe a lot of people in America are confused, and looking for something new.

    Maybe a hardcore libertarian might be what the country needs?

    I don't necessarily agree with this, mind you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    I think a lot of people are confused these days. I am rather confused about this thing called "strict consitutionalism". I just do not get the arguement. Advocates are good at repeating the mantra but not so good about defining what it means in any detail.
     
  22. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Yeah I dunno. You've obviously heard ``if it's not in the constitution, it's out'' sort of arguments. That was the questions I've always asked the Ron Paul supporters who came up and asked for signatures on petitions.

    Either way, it's clear that without a significant Republican majority in the Senate, and a Republican majority in the House, he'd never be able to stick to his hard line positions.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2010
  23. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    agreed
     

Share This Page