-
Adieu, Adieu, Remember Me
March 25, 2011 | 38 comments
-
DeMint’s Defense of RomneyCare is Ignorant…And Dangerous
March 17, 2011 | 85 comments
-
McConnell Pushing Vote to Block the EPA from Regulating Carbon Emissions
March 17, 2011 | 9 comments
-
More Barbour on Afghanistan
March 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
House Passes Three Week Spending Bill
March 15, 2011 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Ron Paul has pulled off a repeat, winning the CPAC presidential straw poll once again with 30 percent of the vote.
Mitt Romney finished second with 23 percent; followed by Gary Johnson and Chris Christie at 6 percent; Newt Gingrich at 5 percent; Tim Pawlenty, Michelle Bachmann and Mitch Daniels at 4 percent, Sarah Palin at 3 percent, and everybody else at 2 percent or less.
View all comments (111) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Philip Klein
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/02/12/ron-paul-continues-cpac-straw
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Michael L. Hauschild| 2.12.11 @ 5:49PM
The implications of this are earth shattering, mind boggling, and ...............sorry I dozed off there.
Alan Brooks| 2.13.11 @ 3:55PM
You might even descend to running Steele for president:
he's tanned, rested, and ready.
Lenny| 2.14.11 @ 1:27AM
Racist.
Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 2.12.11 @ 5:58PM
The Donald said all that needs to be said on this subject, No Chance!!
William R| 2.12.11 @ 6:15PM
Donald Trump who gave money to both Chuck U Schumer and Harry Reid.
Lenny| 2.13.11 @ 1:32PM
Neither one is electable.
Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 2.13.11 @ 3:32PM
This is a stupid argument, if it's UnElectable Ron Paul, or UnElectable Donald Trump, I really don't care, as long as President Obama is a one term President. So if it turns out to be an Isolationist or a Businessman with a bad toupee, I don't care, as long as the Democratic Party is destroyed in 2012 and beyond, I can live with the results.
Lenny| 2.14.11 @ 1:29AM
If Trump and Paul are both unelectable how are they going to beat Obama? Better think it through before you spout off.
Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 2.14.11 @ 6:11AM
I'm working for RACORN now (that's the Republican version), and I'm furiously registering the Dead to vote for 2012, so that's how the UnElectable will win Lenny. You see, I do think things through before I spout off!! If you're looking for a job at RACORN, or have lists of dead people's names that I can register, E-mail them to me @ www.lennyisadumbass.com.
Lenny| 2.14.11 @ 6:13PM
Lay off the booze, dude; you're embarrassing yourself again.
Ellis Wyatt| 2.12.11 @ 6:12PM
Is CPAC irrelevant? I like Ron Paul. He has a clear understanding of economics and our economic problems. I would say he is as good as anyone on economic and monetary issues.
However, when it comes to geopolitics and national defense he is either a complete idiot or amusingly crazy like an out of touch uncle. Because of this glaring deficiency he stands zero chance of even contending in a presidential race.
Keep pounding the Fed is my best advice for him.
William R| 2.12.11 @ 6:16PM
Ron Paul has a better understanding ot geopolitics than the hideous NeoCons that got us stuck in two endless wars in the Middle East.
Ellis Wyatt| 2.12.11 @ 8:24PM
Ha, Ha, Ha! That is the typical response from Ron Paul supporter, quick to call names and lacking any substance. I doubt you know what a neocon is, and I am not a neocon. I am a straight up conservative that understands we have to defend ourselves and our interests around the world. We can't just hide behind our shores and just pretend there is no other world. Hit the Ron paul bong one more time and sleep tight.
William R| 2.12.11 @ 8:39PM
Well Wyatt yes you are a NeoCon son. Anyone that still justifies the Iraq war is a Neocon. A country that was never never never any threat to the United States kid.
Ellis Wyatt| 2.12.11 @ 8:53PM
Learn what words mean before you use them and your arguments may get better. It's been fun, good night.
Lenny| 2.13.11 @ 1:33PM
Dealing with Paultards is usually as fun as a root-canal.
William R| 2.13.11 @ 2:20PM
yea sure Lenny. Paultards. You're a real intellectual Lenny.
William R| 2.13.11 @ 2:19PM
Not much of a reply kid. Yes you are a NeoCon
Lenny| 2.14.11 @ 1:31AM
Root canals are more fun than interacting with Paulmorons like you.
Sean| 2.12.11 @ 6:26PM
Ron Paul is not a scared chicken like so many neocons are. The US has the best military defense in the world. Invading Iraq does not keep us safe. He also voted to go into Afghanistan and we all saw how the neocons let Bin Laden go by not persuing him with American forces.
Occam's Tool| 2.12.11 @ 6:37PM
Paul wants to slice our defense to the bone. He votes with Kucinich on everything outside our borders. We don't need Dennis Kucinich in the White House. Don't take my word for it---go to Thomas and look up his foreign policy votes and compare to Kucinich.
William R| 2.12.11 @ 6:43PM
Ron Paul has proposed a trillion dollar cut in defense over the next ten years. I'd hardly call that cutting to the bone. Especially since Admiral Mike Mullen Chairman of the Joint Chief is on record saying that our biggest national security threat is debt.
axbucxdu| 2.12.11 @ 8:54PM
Well I declare, it's reassuring to know that at least the military in this country still studies history. Now see if you can guess what happens when our forces need to replenish their stocks, and the bond market (read Chi-communism) just says no.
Whatever the Pauls may be on defense and related problems, they're dead nuts on when it comes to fiscal and monetary issues. And as the admiral is now forced to admit, defense is a minor subset of those fiscal and monetary issues. Ergo, the Pauls' politics wrt to defense and foreign policy are not ridiculous.
William R| 2.13.11 @ 2:23PM
Thomas Sowell--- Federal Reserve a 'Cancer'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tp3HEBNvZjk
Occam's Tool| 2.13.11 @ 10:38PM
Look at Kucinich's votes and Paul's votes. You can't tell the difference between them on foreign policy.
Clint| 2.12.11 @ 11:39PM
"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
-Ronald Reagan
Clint| 2.12.11 @ 11:44PM
Ronald Reagan:
“During my 1980 campaign, I called federal waste and fraud a national scandal. We knew we could never rebuild America’s strength without first controlling the exploding cost of defense programs, and we’re doing it. When we took office in 1981, costs had been escalating at an annual rate of 14 percent. Then we began our reforms. And in the last two years, cost increases have fallen to less than 1 percent. We’ve made huge savings. Each F-18 fighter costs nearly $4 million less today than in 1981. One of our air-to-air missiles costs barely half as much.
Getting control of the defense bureaucracy is no small task. Each year the Defense Department signs hundreds of thousands of contracts. So yes, a horror story will sometimes turn up despite our best efforts. That’s why we appointed the first Inspector General in the history of the Defense Department. And virtually every case of fraud or abuse has been uncovered by our Defense Department, our Inspector General. Secretary Weinberger should be praised, not pilloried, for cleaning the skeletons out of the closet. As for those few who have cheated taxpayers or have swindled our Armed Forces with faulty equipment, they are thieves stealing from the arsenal of democracy, and they will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”
Occam's Tool| 2.13.11 @ 10:21PM
That was against the Soviets. He, like you, likes to see little girls raped.
Clint| 2.14.11 @ 6:42AM
Wow !
You're A Head Case Tool Job.
Lenny| 2.14.11 @ 6:15PM
You know ofwhich you speak, moron.
Mo Ron| 2.12.11 @ 7:30PM
Right, Ellis -- the only correct foreign policy for the U.S. is to borrow trillions of dollars from China to invade countless countries around the world.
Anything else is crazy talk.
Ellis Wyatt| 2.12.11 @ 8:36PM
We borrowed no money from anyone to defend ourselves. Prove to me where we borrowed money to defend ourselves. National defense is a constitutional role of the federal government. Those wars were "paid" for and are alot cheaper than the alternative. That argument is old and stale, it is time for you to step into reality and realize we live in a world beyond our own shores.
Now you can make the argument that we have borrowed trillions of dollars and wasted them on entitlements and all the other places the federal government acts where it has no business, but that is not how you choose to see things.
Like I said, I think Ron paul is a smart guy regarding monetary policy and economics, but you Paul supporters that jumped all over my original post prove the point that he is unelectable.
William R| 2.12.11 @ 8:42PM
Good Gravy Wyatt, we are running a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit. We still have troops in Germany and Japan 65 years after World War 2. Troops in Korea 58 years after the Korean war.
Occam's Tool| 2.13.11 @ 10:37PM
The troops in Japan counter China, which is expansionist until the Demographics kick in. Germany will be necessary when the Islamofascists start their take over try. S Korea is an interesting case.
Red Phillips | 2.14.11 @ 8:57AM
"The troops in Japan counter China"
So China wants to invade the US? How do they get the troops over here? Do they have that large a Navy?
Mo Ron| 2.12.11 @ 9:28PM
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are "paid for"? You can't be serious.
We're running a $1.5 trillion deficit next year on a $3.8 trillion budget. $700 billion of that is military spending. If you can't do that math you shouldn't be commenting on a political wesbite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2.....ral_budget
Warrior | 2.12.11 @ 11:55PM
Intellectually lazy argument. The Constitution enumerates the power to provide for the common defense. In order for the war in Iraq to be Constitutional, a declaration of war was needed. Our weak willed elected reps only authorized a use of force which has no Constitutional basis.
Where in the Constitution does it state we must provide military protection for Germany, Japan, England, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait...? Ron Paul may be unelectable, but that does not prove that he is wrong. Just for your information, we were all told that Reagan was unelectable in 1978 also.
Red Phillips | 2.12.11 @ 9:38PM
"However, when it comes to geopolitics and national defense he is either a complete idiot or amusingly crazy like an out of touch uncle."
EW, this kind of mindless assertion is just not going to cut it anymore. The days of conservatives thinking they can just repeat interventionist boilerplate and everyone will nod and cheer are over. Non-interventionism is the rising force, and if you want to counter it you are going to have to do better than "Ron Paul is an idiot/crazy."
Mo Ron| 2.12.11 @ 11:48PM
If they could do better than that, they would.
Red Phillips | 2.13.11 @ 2:42PM
Mo Ron, I'm doing my best to make them think through their presumptions. If they do so it will inevitably accrue to our benefit.
Occam's Tool| 2.13.11 @ 10:29PM
Ok, I'll bite.
Check out the Demographics section of the CIA Factbook, and see which countries are growing and which are shrinking. Sharia law is not capable of existing in peaceful conjunction with Western Democracy and we are outnumbered. Our only hope is better training and better technology. We are under assault, and it's going to get worse as the Demographics tilt against us. And since we're facing a totalitarian ideology, they won't simply "leave us alone." The Paulites are the new Chamberlain, and the Islamists are the new Nazis.
There, Red, no ad hominem, etc. We can either pre-empt and fight them now and on ground of our choosing, or we can wait and fight them at a place of their time and choosing. My review of Demographics says that that would be about 20 years from now, and in Europe and the USA. Some people, and some posters here, are comfortable with that. I, on the other hand, have children, one of them a daughter.
In short, isolationism didn't work in the 30s, and against THE most expansionistic philosophy of all time, it doesn't have a chance in hell of working now. I wish problems came in neat bundles, so that first we could solve our deficit and then fight for our freedom, but it doesn't work that way. Every year our friends grow weaker and our enemies' attacks stronger. And in the years things seem to be calm, they aren't. Our enemies have timelines of millenia.
Red Phillips | 2.13.11 @ 11:23PM
OT, I agree demographics is a problem. That is why the solution is IMMIGRATION RESTRICTION! Not bombing far off countries. What is your plan? To kill enough of them to tilt the demographics? To turn them into good little Westerners at the point of a gun?
Europe has INSANE immigration policies and the natives aren't having enough babies. American has INSANE immigration policies be we aren't were Europe is at demographically yet. Stop the flood tide NOW before it gets worse. Demographic change is NOT a bombs and bullets issue. It is an immigration issue. (How many of the 9/11 terrorists were native born?) Always has been. Always will be.
Ellis Wyatt| 2.13.11 @ 8:47AM
Hey, I like Ron Paul. I also love arguing with Paulites, its fun. Protectionist policies and believing we must ignore the the globalized world we live in will only hasten the downfall of America. I always love the arguments of Germany and Japan, and Korea as if we must just ignore our vital interests that are served by our presence. Geopolitics is alot more complicated than you wish to make it and our future depends on leaders who do understand it and get it right. Non intervention, ie. burying our heads, won't cut it in the world we live in.
Tom| 2.13.11 @ 9:01AM
When I heard Paul argue in the Presidential debates that we should issue Letters of Marques to deal with al-Qaeda and Bin Laden I knew how out of touch he really was on issues of foreign policy .
You are correct that he has a useful role in a future Republican adminstration dealing with economic and monetary challenges. But he is unqualified to be CIC .
Mo Ron| 2.13.11 @ 1:21PM
Right -- better to borrow $1 trillion from the Chinese to take over an entire country and *still* not find bin Laden. That's a lot more cost-effective.
The Soviet Empire died in Afghanistan. The American Empire is foolishly doing the exact same.
Red Phillips | 2.13.11 @ 2:22PM
Tom, Letters of Marques are specifically mentioned in the Constitution right alongside declaring war which we didn't bother to do. What do you have against the Founding Fathers and the Constitution?
Warrior | 2.13.11 @ 9:37AM
Where in the Constitution does it allow our government to take tax money from it's citizens to provide for the defense of sovereign foreign nations on their soil? You are a supporter of how our foreign policy has been conducted over the last 20-50 years? What are it's successes? It would appear that our intervention has brought us nothing more than continued war and deep entanglements with countries whose populations despise us for all the help. You make statements that have no basis in factual support but are excellent theoretical topics for debate.
Red Phillips | 2.13.11 @ 2:38PM
EW, Ron Paul is not a "Protectionist" (not that I even know exactly what that means). I think the smear term you were looking for is "isolationist."
What other countries on earth have bases and troops all over the globe? Let me help you out. NONE! You are not really arguing that our presence all over the globe is essential for the future of the US whether you know it or not. You are arguing that our presence is necessary for global stability or whatever. Where is providing for global stability in the Constitution? What former global king of the earth died and appointed us his successor?
What non-interventionists want is no more than for America to behave like almost every other country on earth. That this is the conservative inclination (to be normal) is obvious and not really debatable. The idea that America is supposed to secure peace around the globe is a radical revolutionary idea. It is manifestly not conservative.
Mo Ron| 2.13.11 @ 10:13PM
The other big foreign policy point that Paul made at CPAC was: it doesn't matter whether you think America should continue its current foreign policy or not: we simply can't afford it. The currency crisis is happening as we speak -- the Fed is now the main buyer of our debt (!) -- so the troops are coming home whether you want them to or not. Like the British Empire and the Soviet Empire's troops before us.
As Paul says, we should do it in an orderly fashion now instead of being forced into a chaotic global withdrawal soon.
Occam's Tool| 2.13.11 @ 10:32PM
The former king was the UK, and we are the successor, as the Byzantines were the successors of the Romans. They managed to survive for a thousand years past the fall of Rome. With Ron or Rand in charge, we'll be lucky to last 5 minutes.
Red Phillips | 2.13.11 @ 11:33PM
Well that's kinda my point OT. The UK was an EMPIRE. America is not an empire. We are a constitutionally limited republic. If you want us to be an empire you should at least be honest about it an attempt to amend the Constitution.
"we'll be lucky to last 5 minutes"
This is exactly the kind of appeal to lizard brain fear that drives me nuts. Please explain this to me. What is the scenario whereby we would be destroyed or taken over in 5 minutes? I know you were embellishing with the 5 minutes so just draw me up the scenario whereby we would be invaded or destroyed in a couple of years. Thanks.
Floyd Looney | 2.12.11 @ 6:22PM
It shows just how out of touch this organization with conservatism. Its so easy to pack in the libertarian dope and pole smokers.
William R| 2.12.11 @ 6:30PM
Looney, you're a loser in this game we call life
Occam's Tool| 2.12.11 @ 6:35PM
Well, yes, Paul is in favor of drug legalization. He is also a foreign policy idiot. Are the two related? Perhaps.
William R| 2.12.11 @ 6:45PM
William F. Buckley favored drug legalization. And the foreign policy of Bush Cheney was anything but conservative. Progressive internationalism of the Woodrow Wilson school yes, but conservative?? Who are you kidding.
Red Phillips | 2.12.11 @ 9:29PM
I personally do not favor drug legalization at the state level, but FEDERAL drug laws are unconstitutional. The FDA is unconstitutional. If you are an originalist and believe in enumerated powers, you have to accept this.
Clint| 2.12.11 @ 11:36PM
Dr. Ron Paul adopted the Republican Liberty Caucus Position Statement:
1. BE IT RESOLVED that the Republican Liberty Caucus endorses the following [among its] principles:While recognizing the harm that drug abuse causes society, we also recognize that government drug policy has been ineffective and has led to frightening abuses of the Bill of Rights which could affect the personal freedom of any American. We, therefore, support alternatives to the War on Drugs.
2. Per the tenth amendment to the US Constitution, matters such as drugs should be handled at the state or personal level.
3. All laws which give license to violate the Bill of Rights should be repealed."
Occam's Tool| 2.13.11 @ 10:33PM
Treat as many people destroyed by drugs as I have, Clint, and it may be worth talking to you. But I doubt it.
Red Phillips | 2.13.11 @ 11:39PM
I treat people battling drugs every day. I'm ASAM certified. OT probably knows what that means. That is why I think drug legalization at the state level would be a disaster. But that doesn't change the fact that federal drug laws are unconstitutional. There is no enumerated power to do that at the federal level. Why do you think we had to amend the Constitution to prohibit alcohol?
Clint| 2.14.11 @ 6:52AM
That's Bold Talk From A Pill Pushin' Big Pharma Pimp Sorry-Assed Excuse For A Shrink.
Clint| 2.14.11 @ 7:17AM
P.S. The above snotty retort is for The Israel Firster AgendaBoy Tool Job.
Clint| 2.12.11 @ 11:24PM
"On January 5th, 2011, Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) introduced the Prescription Drug Affordability Act, which would amend the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. We applaud the bill’s intent because it seeks to do away with unfair trade laws and policies applied to drug pricing by allowing Americans to purchase lower cost prescription drugs safely from other countries without the threat of prosecution."
Warrior | 2.13.11 @ 12:06AM
Cocaine was legal earlier in U.S. history and alcohol was illegal. What's your point about drug legalization? Millions of Americans are addicted to "legally" prescribed pain killers. Where is the outrage?
Our current foreign policy is successful? We currently give aid to Hamas and yet refuse any consideration to the Iranians who are pro-democracy. We sit by and watch genocide in Darfur and have worked wonders in Serbia, Somalia, North Korea and Yugoslavia. To what end do you support the approach our foreign policy has taken over the last 20 years?
Tim the Enchanter| 2.14.11 @ 10:26AM
Not only Cocaine, but Heroin, as well. Not just legal, but OTC!
Bruno| 2.12.11 @ 6:28PM
I certainly like Ron Paul the best of bunch. GOProud rocks.
Michael L. Hauschild| 2.12.11 @ 6:29PM
CPAC is about as relevant, definitive, and encompassing as “Republican.” It means nothing, has no significance in the actual scheme of mainstream opposition to progressivism, and is simply a showcase of leading losers. When placed under scrutiny it emerges as a consortium of the worse elements of Republican politics. In contrast the Tea Party is clean, the Tea Party is focused, and the Tea Party represents the focus and awareness of the constitutionally aroused and aware American constituency.
Mimi| 2.13.11 @ 10:31AM
Michael, your missing some facts in your judgement of C-PAC...The attendence increased in numbers this year....in 2009 when our spirits were low Rush Limbaugh gave a rousing speech at C-PAC.
What we see this year is many young people and that is why Ron Paul won the STRAW - POLL!
They in their exuberance and spirited passion seem to fail to see Ron Pauls age as a factor. The young were a factor in the election of the "O". Look where that got us!!
We need to put effort into educating the "YOUNG voter about electibility to WIN...2012 is critical ... and a must win for the sake of the country. We need a somewhat, older and wiser candidate.
C-PAC won me over watching the final speaker... What a contrast to the "O" Allen West was...What a great AMERICAN this country produced in that man!!! C-PAC is here to stay.
Michael L. Hauschild| 2.13.11 @ 11:25AM
Read the Contract, read the Constitution, and leave your baggage at the door. CPAC is good for speeches but those speeches are composed of the same rhetoric the campaign promises, from the same tired losers that produced the mess we are in now. We do not need a paint job, or a tweaking to the tuning of a car careening off of the cliff.
William R| 2.12.11 @ 6:36PM
leading losers?? Hauschild are you talking about yourself again son??
Cato| 2.12.11 @ 7:11PM
I am a very hardline libertarian, but I have a problem with Paul. He tends, apart from Fed where I support him, to be controversial and brave only in those areas where it is popular thing to do with the Left. He for example never touches social security and Medicare. Moreover, he openly proposed to cut the hundreds of billion of miltary spending to "shore up" Medicare and social security. The real problem with him is that he is not radical enough. HE was actually a mediocre libertarian sounding politician without much substance when you look more carefully. A libertarian who wants to pour trillions into the entitlement programs that are already bankrupting the country? I think his son is much more solid libertarian, and also does not have those moronic ideas about Al Quaeda as a bunch of misguided poor people, justly offended by the American foreign policy.
Mo Ron| 2.12.11 @ 7:33PM
You misunderstand Paul's position on Medicare. They only need "shoring up" in the sense that it's immoral to promise money to people, get them dependent on it, then take it away.
Paul wants to eliminate Medicare, but to phase it out over several decades, keeping its promises made to America's elderly.
The only way to do that is to stop borrowing trillions from China to continue invading countless countries across the globe. This is what CPAC voters understand that some posters here do not.
Wayne | 2.12.11 @ 10:52PM
I had a debate with my history professor back in the '60s about medicare and SSN. I called it generational warfare. Eventually a generation would refuse to pay into it any longer, as the generations that paid into it all its working years would be denied both healthcare and the benefits.
It was a bad idea from the get go.
But it is not just medicare and SS. It cost taxpayers 10,000 dollars a year per student from 5 to 18 for schooling. We can not justify cutting SSN and Medicare without cutting Public Education.
Hank| 2.12.11 @ 7:33PM
Bad news for Palin. The libertarian wing block voted for Paul. The social conservatives for Romney. There was no constituency left for the hockey mom. Even Bachmann beat her with tea partiers.
C Bowen| 2.12.11 @ 8:06PM
I think you meant to type the socialized medicine conservatives, who indeed, voted for Romney.
Lenny| 2.13.11 @ 1:37PM
Good one.
Social Conservatives for Mitt? BS.
axbucxdu| 2.12.11 @ 9:04PM
Then she's got nothing to lose by continuing to speak her mind. Were the other Repugs, excepting Paul, to live so free or die.
Eric Damon| 2.12.11 @ 8:23PM
So what? Does anyone really believe that Ron Paul has broad enough support across the conservative to libertarian spectrum to actually win anything other than a straw poll? A straw poll filled with the libertarians who routinely clock to CPAC? Ron Paul has about as much of a chance of becoming the GOP nominee as Ru-Paul!
Mo Ron| 2.12.11 @ 11:50PM
Both the joke and the political analysis are so 2008.
Lenny| 2.13.11 @ 1:39PM
You're delusional and Donald Trump was right.
Bruno| 2.12.11 @ 8:26PM
I want a leader who will go to a hotel room to talk Austrian economics with a stranger. Ron Paul is that man. GOProud rocks.
Nite| 2.12.11 @ 10:27PM
Mr. Paul is a really good guy, but is not electable for President. The same goes for Sarah Palin and Michele Bachman. Sarah can bring in the crowds and with a Republican President, would make a good Interior Secretary with some common sense for a change. Alan West is an up and coming Republican star as is Marco Rubio.
Wayne | 2.12.11 @ 10:45PM
This bothers me some. We seem to like what the women offer, but are unwilling to vote for them.
bert| 2.12.11 @ 10:39PM
Good Old Fraud Ronny tries another tired PR scam . Ronnie again buses in paid colllege kids to stuff a straw poll just like last year . What a shock and a crock.Mr Paul who is a vile anti-semite fraud who throws a hissy fit about his precious EARMARKS while having the nerve to peddle himself as a budge hawk. I see the radical lefties are here pretending to be his supporters but just using this fraud to smear the GOP .
Red Phillips | 2.13.11 @ 2:49PM
"who is a vile anti-semite"
When you are unable to argue facts or philosophy, just call names. It so much easier than making a real argument.
Occam's Tool| 2.13.11 @ 10:34PM
He is a vile anti-semite. Check out his writings on the subject, and his palship with Stormfront.
Red Phillips | 2.13.11 @ 11:49PM
Paul has never written a word that was anti-Semitic. He has never written "I hate Jews" or anything close. He holds political positions regarding the proper relationship of the US with Israel (and every other country) that you disagree with. That does not make him an anti-Semite unless you also believe that being against affirmative action and quotas makes someone a racist.
Some of the folks at Stormfront supported him, because I'm sure the Stormfronters don't like our current policies re. Israel either. So what? Such simpleminded guilt by association should be beneath you.
Clint| 2.14.11 @ 6:56AM
Tool Job Is An Israel Firster Smear Artist AgendaBoy.
This Clown has an Ax to Grind because Dr. Ron Paul doesn't Asskiss Tool Job's Israel Firster Agenda.
Lenny| 2.14.11 @ 6:22PM
I may not agree with OT on everything, but he's right when he says you're an anti-Semite. You most definitely are.
Wayne | 2.12.11 @ 10:43PM
Ron Paul certainly does not have a shot at winning the nomination, but people are foolish to ignore or mock him. Listen to what he has to say. He has seen the the train wreck coming and he has warned us about it. He says many simple truths. "We can't spend money we don't have." and "We should not be the policemen of the world." "We must protect our own borders." and "We must eliminate the Federal Reserve".
The next candidate would be wise to adopt Paul's ideas. We should not be building nations. We should have had Iraq pay for our losses in oil (as Bush promised). We can't claim to be fiscal conservatives and still give the Federal Reserve the power to create money out of thin air. We need to cut the size way beyond most Republicans are willing to do. Why, because they too take money from the special interests that lobby for them.
bert| 2.12.11 @ 11:18PM
That anti semite Ronnny Paul wants to make sure his million dollar earmarks to his Lobbyist buddies are not reduced because of that silly Military budget ! And God forbid Israel might survive a few more years and Ronny can't have that.
Clint| 2.12.11 @ 11:50PM
"The Huffington Post recently sunk to a new low by publishing an attack on “Ron Paul and the Tea Parties: States' Rights and the 17th Amendment” by one Leonard Zeskind, a “former” Stalinist rabble-rouser. According to Laird Wilcox, author of The Watchdogs, a book about contemporary political movements, Zeskind began his communistic career of agitprop in the '70s as a “front man” for the “Sojourner Truth Organization” whose stated objective was “to motivate the working classes to make a revolution.” The Organization quoted its role model, Josef Stalin, who insisted on the need for “iron discipline” in agitating for a communist revolution in America.
An example of the Zeskind/Huffington “ritual defamation” strategy is his statements in The Huffington Post that: 1) Someone writing for an obscure publication called “The American Free Press” noted recently that “the Tea Parties were actually born during the presidential campaign of Rep. Ron Paul of Texas”; 2) Several decades ago, someone who wrote in “The American Free Press” was revealed to be a Holocaust Denier; 3) Therefore, the Tea Parties (and Ron Paul's supporters) must be hotbeds of Holocaust Denial."
Mo Ron| 2.12.11 @ 11:52PM
If you must feed the trolls, at least save it for the high-quality trolls.
Lenny| 2.13.11 @ 1:40PM
That leaves you out.
Occam's Tool| 2.13.11 @ 10:35PM
No, it's in his own newsletters, under his name.
Clint| 2.14.11 @ 7:47AM
Once again, Israel Firster Tool Job attempts to Smear Dr.Ron Paul
Do The Homework:
"Bill White hates Ron Paul with a passion. He hates Ron Paul because - get this - he thinks Ron Paul's campaign is infiltrated by "the Jews" and he cites none other than the Ludwig von Mises Institute (named after a Jewish economist and co-founded by another Jewish economist) as "proof" of this. So much for Jamie Kirchick's "Ron Paul is an anti-semite" theme."
NadePaulKuciGravMcKi| 2.13.11 @ 12:45AM
The American Street knows they have been lied to.
both of our corrupt political parties
all of our corrupt controlled media
This ain’t no party
This ain’t no disco
This ain’t no fooling around
bee free| 2.13.11 @ 1:32AM
---Paul may very well be the best of what's available, such as that it.
MEANWHILE the CAP-COM capstone 'charitable' foundations
and NGO's have to be called out for MASSIVE
investigation, prosecution and dismantling.
THERE IS NO OTHER WAY
--------------NONE...
Wayne | 2.13.11 @ 8:01AM
Is it possible that the next GOP candidate needs to ask only one question to win? Where is the birth certificate? And who better to ask it than West?
Taxpayer| 2.14.11 @ 12:15AM
All that means is more Paulfans attended the conference. Big woo.
Lenny| 2.14.11 @ 1:34AM
You mean Paultards, right?
Red Phillips | 2.14.11 @ 8:51AM
Real matrure Lenny. Why don't you consider formulating an argument and get back with us after you do.
Lenny| 2.14.11 @ 6:16PM
Truth hurts doesn't it, Paultard?
Red Phillips | 2.14.11 @ 10:21PM
Grow up Lenny. Name calling is not an argument. Formulate one please if you have the intellectual capability to do so.
Lenny| 2.14.11 @ 10:42PM
You're a Paultard, but not an obnoxious one like Clint and his clowns.
Clint| 2.14.11 @ 12:10PM
Dr.Rand Paul Is A Tea Party Senator & Dr.Ron Paul is A Tea Party Favorite, as popular as Sarah Palin.
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.
Rise Up.
Lenny| 2.14.11 @ 6:20PM
You're delusional.
Cpm| 2.14.11 @ 11:00AM
As we have said before, Paulbots place great stock in winning straw polls, online polls, etc, yet when it comes down to brass tacks, most conservatives choose not to board the crazy train. If anything, I would think this would serve to invalidate any sort of importance placed on the CPAC straw poll. It is like winning Miss Congeniality, a consolation prize.
toledofan| 2.14.11 @ 12:23PM
Ron Paul winning doesn't mean a lot other than most of the people at CPAC like what he says, but, to have him as our President, he's just not flexible and in some cases not very realistic. I'm not sold on Romney being the best choice either, it seems to me like we need somebody different, somebody with some real fire in their belly and someone for sure who really cares about America. I think a guy like Barbour would be a good choice.
Clint| 2.14.11 @ 12:39PM
"Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, announced that Ron Paul head of the House Domestic Monetary Policy Subcommittee when Republicans assumed the majority in the 112th Congress.
"This is the leadership team that crafted the first comprehensive financial reform bill to put an end to the bailouts, wind down the taxpayer funding of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and enforce a strong audit of the Federal Reserve," Bachus said in a statement, adding that the committee's "first priority is to end the taxpayer funded bailout of Fannie and Freddie."
On Wednesday December 8th,2010, a group of about 30 tea party-aligned groups wrote a letter urging Bachus and House Speaker-designate John Boehner (R-Ohio) to support Paul's bid for subcommittee chairman. The letter was in response to reports that GOP leaders were mulling ways to block Paul from becoming chairman over concerns that his views are too radical.
In the letter, the groups warned that the "implied message" of blocking Paul would be "one of indifference towards the concerns of those who helped put the Republican Party back in the majority."
Lenny| 2.14.11 @ 6:19PM
Paultards like you alienate too many people from Ron Paul. You do him no favors.