CPAC straw poll: Just one percent list stopping gay marriage as a top priority

posted at 3:35 pm on February 21, 2010 by Allahpundit

A nugget mined from the PDF of the full results. This does jibe with the gay-friendly-ish vibe to this year’s proceedings, but how seriously should we take a poll that was won by, um, Ron Paul and whose results were not only booed by the crowd but belittled by CPAC spokesmen who touted the booing to the media?

abortion

That’s a big menu and the winner was a fait accompli thanks to The One’s agenda and tea-party fee-vah, but still. Only 16 percent had abortion, gay marriage, or “promoting traditional values” as either of their top two priorities? Granted, students comprised 48 percent of the sample — how else could Paul have won? — but that might be less significant as evidence that the poll’s an outlier than as evidence that it may not be such an outlier a few years from now. (More than half the votes cast in the poll were by those 25 years old or younger.)

This is weird too:

smallgovt

Again, with conservatives tilting libertarian and Beck the keynote speaker, the winner was inevitable, but note how they phrased the foreign-policy option. Secure America’s safety … “regardless of the cost or the size of government”? I’m surprised they got even seven percent for that proposition. Why no similarly scary caveat on the individual freedom option, e.g., “regardless of whether reducing unemployment benefits will leave millions of people to starve“? Who wrote these questions, Lew Rockwell?

Exit question: 53 percent say they wish the GOP had a better field of presidential candidates. Is that an outlier produced by the Paulnut contingent too, or genuine proof that there’s room for a dark horse?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Priorities man, priorities!

Gay issues are not on the …… gaydar as it were.

conservnut on February 21, 2010 at 3:38 PM

Well, if you don’t like this poll, then look at others and look at the conversations happening on HA… Not too pull an AnninCA, here, but People are tired of Bloated Government and that’s gonna trump Gay Marriage and other issues in this political climate…

MeatHeadinCA on February 21, 2010 at 3:40 PM

No surprise. The question asked what is the “top” priority. Aside from the Prop 8 challenge in federal court, the various state legislatures seem to be doing a good rejecting gay marriage.

darii on February 21, 2010 at 3:40 PM

There is room for a Dark Horse but Paul aint it. He is compelling when you talk about reducing the size of the federal government, but he is WAY out there on some issues and is a bit of an eccentric in general.

Dash on February 21, 2010 at 3:41 PM

Quick, what were the results of last year’s straw poll?

d1carter on February 21, 2010 at 3:42 PM

but how seriously should we take a poll that was won by, um, Ron Paul

not very seriously

Branch Rickey on February 21, 2010 at 3:42 PM

More than half the votes cast in the poll were by those 25 years old or younger.

Do you think these youngsters will show up at the polls come November?

53 percent say they wish the GOP had a better field of presidential candidates.
Is that an outlier produced by the Paulnut contingent too, or genuine proof that there’s room for a dark horse?

If this the same group of youngsters, 25 or younger, then I refer you to question 1.

When they did this poll, did they deliberately seek out Paulnuts?

Kini on February 21, 2010 at 3:42 PM

Exit question: 53 percent say they wish the GOP had a better field of presidential candidates. Is that an outlier produced by the Paulnut contingent too, or genuine proof that there’s room for a dark horse?

Again… look at the conversations on HA… Sure there are some Palin supporters, but a lot of people here know we could do better … we just don’t know who better is.

MeatHeadinCA on February 21, 2010 at 3:42 PM

Straw poll? Don’t care. Not representtive.

OhioCoastie on February 21, 2010 at 3:43 PM

There is room for a Dark Horse but Paul aint it. He is compelling when you talk about reducing the size of the federal government, but he is WAY out there on some issues and is a bit of an eccentric in general.

Dash on February 21, 2010 at 3:41 PM

In conservative circles, eccentric or “out there” aren’t exactly bad things… However, if we have to win over a sizable chunk of Independents that are slightly libertarianish (i.e. starting to dislike Statism), then Republicans are going to have to offer up someone better than Paul – someone that isn’t so inflexible.

MeatHeadinCA on February 21, 2010 at 3:45 PM

I’m for traditional marriage but I’ll admit it is not in my top priority list. Although for some liberals it seems like that is all they care about. If you watch The Daily Show or listen to Meghan McCain it’s like gays are being denied the right to breathe.

terryannonline on February 21, 2010 at 3:45 PM

Straw poll: Definition – What horses eat and the byproduct left behind.

Kini on February 21, 2010 at 3:45 PM

Although I think you can group “stopping gay marriage” in with “promoting traditional values.” So I don’t know whether this is a “gay-friendly” vibe or more of a “gay-indifferent” vibe. Replace “gay marriage” with “abortion” and I wouldn’t be surprised if you saw somewhat similar results. Not that conservatives are now more “abortion-friendly.”

darii on February 21, 2010 at 3:45 PM

I don’t agree with gay marriage, but it will NEVER be my top priority!

The poll is rather poorly done and clearly aimed at a particular result.

sharrukin on February 21, 2010 at 3:47 PM

Is it really so hard to believe that people want a strong military that isn’t forced to support the security of every nation in the world but the nation that is paying for the military? Not everyone believes that preemptive wars will ultimately be what brings safety and security to the homeland. The notion that if you don’t support undeclared preemptive wars you are not conservative is ridiculous

wiseprince on February 21, 2010 at 3:49 PM

Exit question: 53 percent say they wish the GOP had a better field of presidential candidates. Is that an outlier produced by the Paulnut contingent too, or genuine proof that there’s room for a dark horse?

Dark horse. I do like Palin, but I want her to have more experience. Most others give me a meh feeling.

rbj on February 21, 2010 at 3:50 PM

The notion that if you don’t support undeclared preemptive wars you are not conservative is ridiculous

wiseprince on February 21, 2010 at 3:49 PM

b-b-but… Oh, nevermind.

I want to hear the people claiming the above as some purity test demand to secure the boarder first…

MeatHeadinCA on February 21, 2010 at 3:50 PM

If you reduce the size of the federal government all of the other conservative goals fall far more readily into place. It’s the first step back to America.

Mojave Mark on February 21, 2010 at 3:51 PM

I’m a 22 year-old senior at the University of Washington who attended CPAC. Paul got roundly boo’d when he was announced the winner, and when Romney was announced as coming in 2nd, cheers erupted from the ballroom.

This straw poll is a joke. It’s well known that the C4L/YAL/Ron Paul people are incredibly well-organized. They were relentless (to the point of major annoyance) in handing out flyers and pamphlets, and there’s no doubt every RP supporter was told they needed to vote in the straw poll.

I’m not even sure why RP is invited to CPAC when he’s a Libertarian and his foreign policy is waaaay out of the mainstream in terms of Conservative thought.

Lastly, not all of the students there were crazy Ron Paul supporters. Many of the ones I met thinks he and many of supporters are obnoxious and/or crazy.

nickj116 on February 21, 2010 at 3:52 PM

If you reduce the size of the federal government all of the other conservative goals fall far more readily into place. It’s the first step back to America.

Mojave Mark on February 21, 2010 at 3:51 PM

Yep, and I think the people who voted realized this…

MeatHeadinCA on February 21, 2010 at 3:52 PM

I’m stringently Pro-Life, but if I were asked about the same list up there, I’d put reducing spending/reducing federal government as 1 & 2. Why? Because the culture that rides on government dependence is entirely corrupt, and ultimately replaces God, marriage, and freedom with Big Brother. Should government become minimalized, traditional values take over with self-reliance.

Nethicus on February 21, 2010 at 3:52 PM

Exit question: 53 percent say they wish the GOP had a better field of presidential candidates. Is that an outlier produced by the Paulnut contingent too, or genuine proof that there’s room for a dark horse?

Not an outlier. I don’t feel very excited about Romney, or Pawlenty, or *shudder* Huckabee, or *snigger* Ron Paul. I mean, is this the best we can do?

My Dream: teh Fred with actual fire in belly.

darii on February 21, 2010 at 3:53 PM

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-the-worlds-biggest-story-everywhere-but-here/

I care much more about this story than I ever will ever care about anything gay related. Gays love to be in the spotlight as victims… Kill their spotlight and let them live in a self created closet.

Keemo on February 21, 2010 at 3:53 PM

thinksthink

nickj116 on February 21, 2010 at 3:54 PM

I’m not even sure why RP is invited to CPAC when he’s a Libertarian and his foreign policy is waaaay out of the mainstream in terms of Conservative thought.

nickj116 on February 21, 2010 at 3:52 PM

Weren’t the Birchers cosponsors or something? They aren’t exactly mainstream. Look, I kind of get where you’re coming from, but you have to remember that CPAC itself isn’t exactly mainstream…

MeatHeadinCA on February 21, 2010 at 3:54 PM

Is it really so hard to believe that people want a strong military that isn’t forced to support the security of every nation in the world but the nation that is paying for the military? Not everyone believes that preemptive wars will ultimately be what brings safety and security to the homeland. The notion that if you don’t support undeclared preemptive wars you are not conservative is ridiculous

wiseprince on February 21, 2010 at 3:49 PM

That’s why I consider myself right-of-center. I couldn’t call myself a conservative with a straight face, but I can’t stand the Democratic Party or most of their views, so there you go.
One beef though that I have with your argument is that most who are against the Iraq War, etc. (preemptive war) are usually the ones who think it was done for diabolical reasons. I truly, honesty have never heard a reasonable person who is against that kind of preemptive war.

NathanG on February 21, 2010 at 3:54 PM

Just watching daytime television for a few minutes will show you how much the country doesn’t care about this. Gays and Lesbian guests are talking about their mates in ways that would have been unheard of even 10 years ago. Sure the old people watching are a little uncomfortable but they aren’t going to boycott anything.

Speedwagon82 on February 21, 2010 at 3:54 PM

Slow news day?

darii on February 21, 2010 at 3:56 PM

Part of the reason why stopping gay marriage polled so poorly is because it more or less is stopped: mostly by amendments to state constitutions.

That battle is mostly won (in the states where it can be won, anyway), so everyone moves onto the next battles.

needtoknow on February 21, 2010 at 3:57 PM

Poorly worded poll on core beliefs. More important is the CNN poll in which 86% think that government is broken, or Teh Won’s shiny new -19 approval rating per Rasmussen. Heh.

GnuBreed on February 21, 2010 at 3:58 PM

There are still “core values” that America was founded on and fought and died for. Integrity, honesty, strength of character. Value of family, value of life, value of “nuclear family” i. e. father, mother, children. The strength of America as a world power. Trash those and we’re toast. We’re heading there now if not for a miracle…the ol’ “ship of state” has been careening towards a huge ice berg for years, generations, and if we don’t swerve away, we’re done…I dearly hope that straw poll is NOT indicative of where we’re continuing to head. Yes, I agree completely that reducing the size of gov’mint and the huge debt is vital. But there are other things to be addressed too. Just sayin’.

Roger Brown on February 21, 2010 at 3:58 PM

Clearly, we need to rid our movement of the gays, and follow the lockstep of Almighty Sorba.

I mean, what’s the point of reducing the size of government so that it better represents the citizens, winning the war against Islamic terrorism, bringing the unemployment rate back down to early 2000s levels, and securing the borders and sovereignty of our nation…

…if a gay guy is going to support us? EWWWWWWWW!!!! I’D RATHER LIVE IN A SOCIALIST UTOPIA!!!!

MadisonConservative on February 21, 2010 at 3:59 PM

Great. The war in Iraq gets a whopping 3 percent? I guess if it’s not on the TV every night to report on the “unjustifiable” American casualties it’s easily back-burnered.

America, home of the original short attention span theater.

hawkdriver on February 21, 2010 at 4:00 PM

I’m for traditional marriage but I’ll admit it is not in my top priority list. Although for some liberals it seems like that is all they care about. If you watch The Daily Show or listen to Meghan McCain it’s like gays are being denied the right to breathe.

terryannonline on February 21, 2010 at 3:45 PM

I agree. Try watching Chelsea Lately and she mentions it every other freakin’ day. Frankly, I don’t agree with either side. If we let the states and their voters decide, it’s okay by me. No reason to fret from either corner. I can certainly relate to the “gay rights are not the same as civil rights” argument. They’re not. These people are not living with a bigoted government that will not, as you stated, allow gays to breathe. There are only a handful of countries in the world that actually allow and endorse gay marriage, so the gays in America should be glad it’s even considered here.

NathanG on February 21, 2010 at 4:02 PM

Clearly, we need to rid our movement of the gays, and follow the lockstep of Almighty Sorba.

I mean, what’s the point of reducing the size of government so that it better represents the citizens, winning the war against Islamic terrorism, bringing the unemployment rate back down to early 2000s levels, and securing the borders and sovereignty of our nation…

…if a gay guy is going to support us? EWWWWWWWW!!!! I’D RATHER LIVE IN A SOCIALIST UTOPIA!!!!

MadisonConservative on February 21, 2010 at 3:59 PM

Heh. You hit the nail right on the head!

NathanG on February 21, 2010 at 4:03 PM

Value of family, value of life, value of “nuclear family” i. e. father, mother, children.

We long ago trashed that with high divorce rates unfortunately.

While I am somewhat ambivalent about gay marriage, anyone who thinks people with a case of teh ghey, getting married, is a greater threat to the family than rampant divorce rates, has their head in the sand.

firepilot on February 21, 2010 at 4:03 PM

The notion that if you don’t support undeclared preemptive wars you are not conservative is ridiculous

wiseprince on February 21, 2010 at 3:49 PM

There’s nothing wrong with not supporting a pre-emptive war, the problem with Paul and his cult though, and libertarians in general, is that they’ve pre-emptively ruled out defending the country unless the enemy is literally on our shores and even then i wouldn’t have too much faith in that crowd actually sending the military to do it’s job and defend this land.

clearbluesky on February 21, 2010 at 4:03 PM

I’m really surprised illegal immigration was such a low priority. Do you people understand what’s going on here? Do you realize if it isn’t stopped the deomcrats will forever be in power? Do you understand we are being bled to death by illegals?

nazo311 on February 21, 2010 at 4:04 PM

Why no similarly scary caveat on the individual freedom option, e.g., “regardless of whether reducing unemployment benefits will leave millions of people to starve“? Who wrote these questions, Lew Rockwell?

Well, according to Democrats any reduction in any type of welfare program, entitlement, or any other government outlay is equivalent to bloody slaughter of innocent citizens, so yeah some caveat might as well go in there. Maybe that would prepare these GOPers for the unearthly howls of Cerberus that will come from the Dems should the Republicans try to reduce the rate of growth of any program whatsoever.

fiatboomer on February 21, 2010 at 4:05 PM

Reigning in Big Government along with distrust of Big Business, Big Labor and Big Media are central to the conservative position.

The Left will not be able to accomplish their “transvaluation of values” (including destroying traditional marriage) without imposing it through Big Government.

Therefore we must tame Big Government in order to empower civil society, which will preserve traditional values.

wraithby on February 21, 2010 at 4:05 PM

I’m really surprised illegal immigration was such a low priority. Do you people understand what’s going on here? Do you realize if it isn’t stopped the deomcrats will forever be in power? Do you understand we are being bled to death by illegals?

nazo311 on February 21, 2010 at 4:04 PM

Until the spending is brought under control a lot of things get second billing. That doesn’t mean they aren’t important just prioritized.

I agree though, I fear it may be too late.

sharrukin on February 21, 2010 at 4:06 PM

It’s unconstitutional for the Feds to make abortion a right, and it’s unconstitutional for the Feds to “do away with abortion.”

Granted, students comprised 48 percent of the sample — how else could Paul have won? — but that might be less significant as evidence that the poll’s an outlier than as evidence that it may not be such an outlier a few years from now.

Peoples’ views tend to change as they get older. Watch.

misterpeasea on February 21, 2010 at 4:08 PM

What’s with this ‘gay-friendly’ thing, AP?

Seriously, is who a person sleeps with a political issue?

If I got with Hillary, does that make me a liberal or a lesbian?

Liam on February 21, 2010 at 4:12 PM

How representative of conservatives are CPACers? I really wasn’t interested all that much in it and except for here, didn’t see much about it… To me CPAC is all th GOP elites who I’m not interested in. Andrew Beitbart and Ann Coulter probably are the only one I was interested in clicking on what they had to say.
Not Glen Beck, Ron Paul, T Paw, Romney, or Will. I was a little bit interested in what De Mint, Morrisey and Rubio said… The straw poll is a joke… so I just wonder how relevant it really is to cOnservatives as a whole?

CCRWM on February 21, 2010 at 4:13 PM

This is worthless. Just because stopping gay marriage is not a top priority doesn’t mean it’s not a priority at all. it’s nowhere near my top 2 either, and I hate libertarians as much as I hate liberals.

Darth Executor on February 21, 2010 at 4:14 PM

It’s unconstitutional for the Feds to make abortion a right, and it’s unconstitutional for the Feds to “do away with abortion.”

Granted, students comprised 48 percent of the sample — how else could Paul have won? — but that might be less significant as evidence that the poll’s an outlier than as evidence that it may not be such an outlier a few years from now.
Peoples’ views tend to change as they get older. Watch.

misterpeasea on February 21, 2010 at 4:08 PM

The state of my generation when it comes to politics scares me. It seems like they are mostly for Obama and the rest are for numby numbnuts like Ron Paul. I must be one of the few who actually would not vote for either.

NathanG on February 21, 2010 at 4:14 PM

I think addressing the impending financial collapse and reigning in the bloated beast of government is a tad more important than who Bruth or Wanda want to marry.

Key West Reader on February 21, 2010 at 4:15 PM

Gay marriage won’t come about for a while now, except for judicial activism. When ME voted it down and the NY/NJ legislatures can’t approve gay marriage, it’ll be decades before purple/red states become possibly liberal in this area. But the era of gay bashing is over. CPAC showed that. The two social issues that the GOP should remain firm on is life and the 2nd amendment.

TimTebowSavesAmerica on February 21, 2010 at 4:19 PM

I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m bored with sex being a political issue.

If I sleep with a black woman, am I ‘enlightened’ or am I some white guy abusing a black woman by making her a white man’s ‘ho? Both points of view exist on the Left–a no-win scenario.

Liam on February 21, 2010 at 4:19 PM

The economy trumps all right now, and since the future shows all signs of a slow job recovery at best, it should continue to a major issue for a few years.

It’s interesting that two speakers at ends of the spectrum in style and tactics (Will and Beck) both expressed the view that Americans are frightened — of their own government and its overreaching intrusion into their lives and livelihood.

As for social issues, they haven’t evaporated, but I think more and more folks are realizing that in order to derail this runaway train, we need all the help we can get. (And, no, it doesn’t mean letting anyone starve, AP, as long as adults remain in charge.)

Nichevo on February 21, 2010 at 4:19 PM

It’s all about priorities. Conservatives are smart enough to realize that while social issues are important the looming collapse of our nation from economic factors or Islamic terrorists is a tad more important. We won’t have the luxury of debating how much liberty to have in our constitutional republic if it does not remain a constitutional republic.

chicagojedi on February 21, 2010 at 4:20 PM

Secure America’s safety … “regardless of the cost or the size of government”? I’m surprised they got even seven percent for that proposition.

In 1941-1945 we had universal male conscription, put 3% of the population into the military, and spent 50% of GDP on the war. Was that too much? Nobody’s saying we need to spend more than we have to; the proper answer is “spend whatever you have to”.

Chris_Balsz on February 21, 2010 at 4:20 PM

Is this the new HA? Christian-baiting, accusations of homophobia, and pressuring social cons to subordinate their priorities to those of the libertarians (a form of leftism) in the name of putting fiscal policy first?

Include me out of that tent.

boko fittleworth on February 21, 2010 at 4:22 PM

Is it me or does Allahpundit exhibit a rather strange, homo-erotic obsession with Ron Paul???
Get over it, man.

RightXBrigade on February 21, 2010 at 4:24 PM

boko fittleworth on February 21, 2010 at 4:22 PM

There have always been aspects of that here because one of the bloggers has a semi-vendetta against social conservatism.
I, too, have noticed a real surge of these postings lately. I think it is a stand to show the new owners that their new pet project will not kowtow to Christian principles. Rebels with a cause. It will pass, hopefully.

carbon_footprint on February 21, 2010 at 4:25 PM

The only thing that prevents me from supporting gay marriage is there is no support for freedom of religion. I don’t want the nation to turn into other nations where pastors and religious figures are thrown in jail because they refuse to go against their religion and perform gay marriage.

If there would be protection for religious figures to refuse to perform the ceremony that is against their religion, then I’d be all for it.

But it’s been shown that the rabid gay sector doesn’t want that to be allowed–a state in the NE (I forget who) tried to put together a gay marriage law with religion protection and the left voted against it because of that.

And I say this as someone who isn’t religious.

Enoxo on February 21, 2010 at 4:26 PM

Sure there are some Palin supporters, but a lot of people here know we could do better … we just don’t know who better is.

MeatHeadinCA on February 21, 2010 at 3:42 PM

Let’s see – you’re saying that you know you like somebody but you don’t know who it is but you sure know it ain’t me. Is that about right?

MadisonConservative on February 21, 2010 at 3:59 PM

Heh. You hit the nail right on the head!

NathanG on February 21, 2010 at 4:03 PM

No, he hit the nail WITH his head. If you hadn’t noticedd by now, MC is a closeted pervert who simply wants to lower the morals of society so that nobody notices how perverted it is. Then he can come out of the closet.

Seriously, don’t know if he’s into butt buddy stuff but he sure does comment like he is. He’s probably into legalizing drugs and open borders, too.

Either way, he’s jumped the shark a long time ago.

platypus on February 21, 2010 at 4:27 PM

Was Ron Paul buying votes with beers or condoms?

meci on February 21, 2010 at 4:31 PM

Either way, he’s jumped the shark a long time ago.

platypus on February 21, 2010 at 4:27 PM

Same can be said for CPAC. Fine speech by Beck, but that was about it.

Norwegian on February 21, 2010 at 4:32 PM

I find the priority regarding health-care costs surprising. I wonder whether this reflects that so many of the respondents may be young people still on daddy’s and mommy’s plans.

Certainly, Obamacare is the wrong way to go. But after the year that’s been, and the increasing costs to come, I’m surprised that more of the conservatives at CPAC weren’t more interested in ensuring that free-market solutions are enacted to ameliorate these problems. I would have expected it between lower taxes and abortion.

BuckeyeSam on February 21, 2010 at 4:33 PM

Enough with these stupid straw polls. What do I care about a very inaccurate poll among a very select few, with a history of easy manipulation? Nothing.

Blake on February 21, 2010 at 4:35 PM

Sarah Palin got 7% in that straw poll. Looking at the other polls, Obama, Reid, and Pelosi only(/sarc) got a 2% job approval rating individually. Interesting numbers although they can’t be compared side to side.

disillusioned on February 21, 2010 at 4:35 PM

Jim Carey some years ago, in a sketch comedy show, highlighted this very thing.

He goes into a McDonald’s, orders his burger and Coke, and adds, “I’m gay.”

Her went through the whole skit that way, adding the “I’m gay” thing to everything he said.

Maybe not the best of comedy, but Carey made a point. And that is, to me, who cares?

Liam on February 21, 2010 at 4:35 PM

It looks like the polling was heavily tilted towards the college students and the 18-25 demographic. It’s no surprise their priorities would be different than the general public as a whole.

Log on February 21, 2010 at 4:39 PM

To me CPAC is all th GOP elites who I’m not interested in.
CCRWM on February 21, 2010 at 4:13 PM

That’s interesting, since I just read a comment on another HA thread complaining that CPAC has been invaded by “the fringe.” Is Beck now an “elite?”

Nichevo on February 21, 2010 at 4:41 PM

Granted, students comprised 48 percent of the sample — how else could Paul have won? — but that might be less significant as evidence that the poll’s an outlier than as evidence that it may not be such an outlier a few years from now. (More than half the votes cast in the poll were by those 25 years old or younger.)

I think you’re misinterpreting the relationship here.

90% of Paulnuts are students doesn’t mean that students are Paulnuts.

Out of thousands of people at CPAC, 100-200 were Paulnuts and every single one voted. Kinda like in the 2008 polls where Ron Paul won every time then went on to… lose epically.

Lehosh on February 21, 2010 at 4:45 PM

Is this the new HA? Christian-baiting, accusations of homophobia, and pressuring social cons to subordinate their priorities to those of the libertarians (a form of leftism) in the name of putting fiscal policy first?

Include me out of that tent.

boko fittleworth

Well social conservatives can always go back to the Democratic Party then. Isnt that where they came from? I seem to remember Social Conservatives enthusiastically voting for Jimmah Carter in 1976, LBJ in 64, and big government programs like the New Deal too.

Any yet another social conservative who can not tell the different between Leftist, and a fiscal conservative policy to get growth under control

Sees a lot of social conservatives would be happy with a nanny state, as long as it is a social conservative nanny state. And they then have the gall to call anyone else a “leftist”, who does not want that.

firepilot on February 21, 2010 at 4:47 PM

Considering the kerfuffle over GOProud prior to the event and the economy how many social conservatives skipped CPAC this time? Were they even well represented?

Rocks on February 21, 2010 at 4:47 PM

Is this the new HA? Christian-baiting, accusations of homophobia, and pressuring social cons to subordinate their priorities to those of the libertarians (a form of leftism) in the name of putting fiscal policy first?

Include me out of that tent.

boko fittleworth

Well social conservatives can always go back to the Democratic Party the, if that is a better tent. Isnt that where they came from? I seem to remember Social Conservatives enthusiastically voting for Jimmah Carter in 1976, LBJ in 64, and big government programs like the New Deal too.

Any yet another social conservative who can not tell the different between Leftist, and a fiscal conservative policy to get growth under control

Sees a lot of social conservatives would be happy with a nanny state, as long as it is a social conservative nanny state. And they then have the gall to call anyone else a “leftist”, who does not want that.

firepilot on February 21, 2010 at 4:49 PM

Is Beck now an “elite?”

Nichevo on February 21, 2010 at 4:41 PM

Not now – it’s been there quite awhile. He’s a recovering alcoholic and elitism is one of the characteristics of problem drinkers.

Is he channeling his elite thing into productive directions? I’d say yes, if only because he pi$$es the correct people off. But he does a lot more good than that so the true gripe about elitists should be altered to exclude those of Beck’s stripe.

platypus on February 21, 2010 at 4:50 PM

That’s interesting, since I just read a comment on another HA thread complaining that CPAC has been invaded by “the fringe.”

Nichevo on February 21, 2010 at 4:41 PM

They tend to go hand in hand. The elites hold power by playing off the fringe activist groups against the great mass of citizens. The Democrats are as elitist as they come and use gays, blacks, hispanics, etc as a power base.

sharrukin on February 21, 2010 at 4:51 PM

Out of thousands of people at CPAC, 100-200 were Paulnuts and every single one voted. Kinda like in the 2008 polls where Ron Paul won every time then went on to… lose epically.
Lehosh on February 21, 2010 at 4:45 PM

Given there were 2395 voters and Paul got 31% of the votes, thats roughly 740ish votes. Where did the other 500 come from?

disillusioned on February 21, 2010 at 4:53 PM

It looks like the polling was heavily tilted towards the college students and the 18-25 demographic. It’s no surprise their priorities would be different than the general public as a whole.

Log on February 21, 2010 at 4:39 PM

If that’s true, then, IMO, they’re well-formed students and post-grads. The winner of the “image” poll was Jim DeMint. How many college students would you expect even know who he is?

I’m far removed from college, but I agree with the poll. DeMint has never wavered in his conservative efforts and votes.

Was Ron Paul simply a protest vote, as in “none of the above.” Did everyone who voted indicate every preference?

Nichevo on February 21, 2010 at 4:54 PM

so the gays in America should be glad it’s even considered here.

NathanG on February 21, 2010 at 4:02 PM

What they should be glad of, is that we don’t live under Sharia law…… yet. And should be doing all they can to insure that we never are. And seeing to it that their brethren in Islamic countries are freed from it. Any many areas of the world gays are not allowed to live. Why don’t we work on that one first huh?

conservnut on February 21, 2010 at 4:55 PM

Crap!

Any IN many areas

conservnut on February 21, 2010 at 4:56 PM

The “Paulistinians” are a strange breed. They’ve tried to infiltrate the Tea Party movement. For the most part they’re harmless, but a few of them are complete nut jobs. Oh, and they’re famous for spamming polls.

Key West Reader on February 21, 2010 at 5:00 PM

I first cast a vote in a national election in 1980 and it was a proud day we got rid of Carter. I can’t remember voting for more than a couple Democrats for partisan office since then. Ron Paul is spot-on brilliant in 50% of what he has to say and bull-goose scary for the other 50%. He’s fine and useful in the House, but don’t let him anywhere near the White House.

I don’t lose any sleep over gay marriage or gays in the military or gay anything else, though I don’t think gays should have any more right to walk down Folsom Street bare-assed than anyone else.

Abortion isn’t at the top of my priority list, and my leanings are vaguely pro-choice anyway.

Do care a lot about the tax-and-spenders.

Do care a WHOLE lot about the carbon-fraudsters.

JEM on February 21, 2010 at 5:01 PM

If we don’t have a solvent nation, nothing else matters.

SouthernGent on February 21, 2010 at 5:02 PM

To me CPAC is all th GOP elites who I’m not interested in.
CCRWM on February 21, 2010 at 4:13 PM
That’s interesting, since I just read a comment on another HA thread complaining that CPAC has been invaded by “the fringe.” Is Beck now an “elite?”

Nichevo on February 21, 2010 at 4:41 PM

What’s your point? That person is entitltled to his opinion as much as I am to mine…

CCRWM on February 21, 2010 at 5:02 PM

“Beck” and “libertarian” in the same sentence, are you kidding me? Mr. For-The-Bailout, New-VAT-Taxes-Are-Needed, and Bomb-Iran-At-All-Costs is anything but libertarian. He’s had libertarian musings from time to time because frankly he’s a confused fool that has no principals and appears to be trying to figure things out for himself, real time, on his radio and TV show.

alteredbeat on February 21, 2010 at 5:08 PM

They tend to go hand in hand. The elites hold power by playing off the fringe activist groups against the great mass of citizens. The Democrats are as elitist as they come and use gays, blacks, hispanics, etc as a power base.

sharrukin on February 21, 2010 at 4:51 PM

So everyone, even the fringers, are controlled by the elites? Does this have something to do with Bildeburgers, by any chance?

Nichevo on February 21, 2010 at 5:08 PM

alteredbeat on February 21, 2010 at 5:08 PM

You forgot to mention that this man truly loves America. He has single handedly roused many Americans to read about our Founders and their principles. Personally, I am grateful for Glenn Beck. I may not agree with him 100% of the time, but he is a Great American.

Key West Reader on February 21, 2010 at 5:11 PM

As long as we are in financial trouble, and we are in trouble, then nothing else matters. If that gets fixed all bets are off on what the most important things will be. As for Exit question 53, I am not excited about anyone being touted as the nominee either. I don’t know if I am still struggling with 2008 or it’s just too soon.

Cindy Munford on February 21, 2010 at 5:11 PM

CCRWM on February 21, 2010 at 5:02 PM

I didn’t say you weren’t entitled to your opinion. The point was that your assessment of CPAC just might depend on your personal beliefs and attitudes, rather than objectivity.

Nichevo on February 21, 2010 at 5:12 PM

BTW I don’t dislike Beck I just wasn’t interested in watching his speech since I watch his show a lot…that’s it…

CCRWM on February 21, 2010 at 5:13 PM

I didn’t say you weren’t entitled to your opinion. The point was that your assessment of CPAC just might depend on your personal beliefs and attitudes, rather than objectivity.

Nichevo on February 21, 2010 at 5:12 PM

Doesn’t everyone’s?… Isn’t that what I said?…

CCRWM on February 21, 2010 at 5:15 PM

So everyone, even the fringers, are controlled by the elites? Does this have something to do with Bildeburgers, by any chance?

Nichevo on February 21, 2010 at 5:08 PM

No it has to do with the blatantly obvious which seems to have passed you by.

Does it upset you that your precious Democrats aren’t the egalitarians you thought they were?

sharrukin on February 21, 2010 at 5:20 PM

Jim Carey some years ago, in a sketch comedy show, highlighted this very thing.

He goes into a McDonald’s, orders his burger and Coke, and adds, “I’m gay.”

Her went through the whole skit that way, adding the “I’m gay” thing to everything he said.

Maybe not the best of comedy, but Carey made a point. And that is, to me, who cares?

Liam on February 21, 2010 at 4:35 PM

If nobody cares, then why be against gay marriage, or repealing DADT?

JetBoy on February 21, 2010 at 5:24 PM

platypus on February 21, 2010 at 4:50 PM

Alcoholic elitism? I’m, uh, speechless.

Nichevo on February 21, 2010 at 5:27 PM

Is this the new HA? Christian-baiting, accusations of homophobia, and pressuring social cons to subordinate their priorities to those of the libertarians (a form of leftism) in the name of putting fiscal policy first?

Include me out of that tent.

boko fittleworth on February 21, 2010 at 4:22 PM

Libertarians are not a form of leftism. The nutroots only pretended to give a crap about them to beat Bush. Since most libertarains are white men, they are assumed to be evil racists by much of the Left anyway.

Speedwagon82 on February 21, 2010 at 5:29 PM

Does it upset you that your precious Democrats aren’t the egalitarians you thought they were?

sharrukin on February 21, 2010 at 5:20 PM

I’m a conservative who’s never voted for a Democrat.

It’s interesting that some conservatives feel that anyone who disagrees, or even questions them in a political discussion, is automatically a Democrat.

Nichevo on February 21, 2010 at 5:31 PM

“Gay marriage” is a semantic trick; there is no such a thing as marriage between any other than a man and a woman (regardless of the laws in some states). The only thing two men or two women can do is to pretend to be married (again, with reference to those states where it is considered legal). So, whether it is “stopped” or not, it simply doesn’t exist, except as a semantic abstraction.

What is terrifying about not stopping the nonsense known as “gay marriage” from spreading is that certain sexual practices will be taught as being on par with sexual intercourse to children in school. Teachers would have to present normal sexual relations between man and woman as being just as legitimate as, what I would call, pseudosexual relations. In fact, there is only one means by which true sexual relations may occur. This is fundamental to human relationships in the family, and therefore fundamental to society. To give this issue such a small degree of regard is very concerning to me personally.

oakland on February 21, 2010 at 5:32 PM

It’s just false to state that social cons come from the left. Before the ’50s, certainly, and maybe even the late ’60s, pretty much everyone was a social con. The social cons emerged as a movement in reaction to the post-WWII cultural revolution (to what we call “the sixties”). The silent majority supported Nixon. The moral majority supported Reagan. It was the pro-life reaction to Roe v Wade that ended the Democrat stranglehold on Catholics. “Reagan Democrats” were largely socially conservative Catholics.

Libertine lefty libertarians are trying to hijack the conservative movement. Social and fiscal conservatism go hand in hand. The libertines, slaves to their passions, will try to enslave us all soon enough. Read up on the French Revolution.

boko fittleworth on February 21, 2010 at 5:32 PM

Actually AP, you missed the story altogether. That poll shows that even with the economy in the latrine, that roughly 30% percent STILL view one of the social issues (abortion, marriage, traditional values, immigration, gun rights, etc) as the most important issue to them.

The story here is that Republicans who think they can get elected ignoring social issues, or on a moderate social platform risk losing 30% of their base.

American Elephant on February 21, 2010 at 5:35 PM

I’m a conservative who’s never voted for a Democrat.

Then what exactly do you not get about a party using fringe groups to game the system?

It’s interesting that some conservatives feel that anyone who disagrees, or even questions them in a political discussion, is automatically a Democrat.

Nichevo on February 21, 2010 at 5:31 PM

This from the twit who says… Does this have something to do with Bildeburgers, by any chance?

You sound like one of the Kos Kiddies so its a little hard to tell!

sharrukin on February 21, 2010 at 5:36 PM

room for a dark horse?

Is that a reference to Jindal’s shade of melanin?

jgapinoy on February 21, 2010 at 5:36 PM

Clearly, we need to rid our movement of the gays, and follow the lockstep of Almighty Sorba.

MadisonConservative on February 21, 2010 at 3:59 PM

The problem with sucking up to the gays, or any identity group for that matter, is that the Republicans will never be able to keep up with the Democrats’ pandering. When the Democrats promise the gay community fisting lessons in the grade schools, what do the Republicans have to offer in return to compete for their votes?

Buddahpundit on February 21, 2010 at 5:36 PM

Libertarians are lefties. They don’t want to conserve anything. They respect no tradition. Their only rule is “I want.”

boko fittleworth on February 21, 2010 at 5:36 PM

He’s probably into legalizing drugs and open borders, too.

platypus on February 21, 2010 at 4:27 PM

Actually, I am into drug legalization, and no, I’ve never used them. Amazing how one can occupy that position on gay issues, too.

As for open borders, get some reading comprehension, nitwit. In my first post in this thread, I talked about securing borders. Amazing how those bigotry goggles color reality for you.

MadisonConservative on February 21, 2010 at 5:36 PM

The story here is that Republicans who think they can get elected ignoring social issues, or on a moderate social platform risk losing a bare minimum of 30% of their base.

American Elephant on February 21, 2010 at 5:35 PM

Fixed it for you! I think it’s a lot higher.

jgapinoy on February 21, 2010 at 5:38 PM

Comment pages: 1 2