And this year’s CPAC straw poll winner is … Update: YAF expels Paul from board

posted at 6:00 pm on February 12, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Alternate headline: CPAC straw poll plumbs depths of irrelevance yet again.  How meaningless was the straw poll for preferred GOP presidential nominee?  The bronze-medal winner is Gary Johnson, the libertarian former governor of New Mexico.  That means that the libertarian vote actually got split this year, and wound up taking two out of three spots on the straw poll anyway:

For the second year in a row, Ron Paul won the presidential straw poll at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, earning 30 percent of the vote.

The Texas congressman, known for his libertarian views, ran for president in 2008 but was never a serious contender for the GOP nomination.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a 2008 GOP candidate who is expected to run again, came in second place with 23 percent of the vote. Romney won the previous three presidential straw polls before Paul snapped his streak last year. …

Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie came in a distant third with 6 percent of the vote, followed by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich with 5 percent.

Considering the environment, Romney has to feel pretty good about gaining the silver medal.  After Christie, who’s not running, and Gingrich, who may be, the order of the poll results were:

  • Tim Pawlenty – 4%
  • Michele Bachmann – 4%
  • Mitch Daniels – 4%
  • Sarah Palin – 3%
  • Herman Cain – 2%

Of the five, only Palin didn’t appear at CPAC this year.  Finishing below them were two prominent potential candidates, Rick Santorum and Haly Barbour, who did and finished with 2% and 1% respectively for their efforts. When combining first and second choices, the onlychange in the order is that Bachmann and Pawlenty trade places.

In other straw poll results, a slim majority of straw poll respondents believe that Republican control of Congress will rein in federal spending (51%) and reduce government regulation (50%).  A plurality of 47% believe that the GOP can get Congress to cut federal taxes.  CPAC’s voters are more pessimistic about repealing ObamaCare and paying down the national debt, with a plurality of 40% on each question believing that Congress won’t accomplish either task.

Of course, when Ron Paul and Gary Johnson team up on the dream CPAC ticket, maybe they’ll get a little more optimistic ….

Update: Warner Todd Huston has more.

Update II, 2/13/11: Young Americans for Freedom (not to be confused with Young America’s Foundation) has expelled Ron Paul from their board over his positions on the war and his refusal to distance himself from 9/11 Truthers:

YAF’s concern with Rep. Paul stems from his delusional and disturbing alliance with the fringe Anti-War movement.

“It is a sad day in American history when a one-time conservative-libertarian stalwart has fallen more out of touch with America’s needs for national security than the current feeble and appeasing administration,” said YAF’s Senior National Director Jordan Marks.

Paul, who had served on the YAF Advisory Board for more than two decades, was awarded with YAF’s highest honor, the Guardian of Freedom award, an honor Rep. Paul has touted on his biography for many years. Only a decade ago, Dr. Paul praised YAF’s work on the House floor. Paul called YAF’s founding document, the Sharon Statement “a great document explicating the philosophy of freedom.”

Marks doesn’t pull any punches in his statement, either:

“Rep. Paul’s refusal to support our nation’s military and national security interests border on treason, aside from his failure to uphold his oath to the United States Constitution and defend our country and citizens against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” Marks continued.

“Rep. Paul has strayed to the left of Obama and allied himself with the radical anti-war left by laying the blame on America for the unprovoked attacks of Sept. 11th. Additionally, Rep. Paul has not condemned the 9/11 “Truther” conspiracy theorists that support him, and he has repeatedly insisted, that the United States not bring justice to those who have murdered thousands of our civilians and soldiers at home and abroad. This is simply unacceptable. Clearly Rep. Paul cares more about a doomed presidential run than he does our country,” Marks added.

I didn’t add this to the post yesterday because I didn’t think it amounted to much, except for a chance to beat up Ron Paul a bit.  Commenters have noted the expulsion on other threads, however, and since this post will ride on top for a while, it seemed like a good place to note the expulsion.  It certainly qualifies as a stinging rebuke.


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 5 6 7

Moderate to Liberal Republicans and Libertarians have so blurred the difference between them and Democrats, that they have in fact caused the damage that you’re crying about.
hawkdriver on February 14, 2011 at 11:21 AM

Agreed.
I’m not invoking Godwin’s law when I discuss the Nationalist Socialist Party, but it bears mentioning that this party swallowed up every single political group that held vastly different views on things.
It destroyed the goals they were individually working for.
(I’m not saying this will usher us into a Reich).
It is a good example of how the issues get trampled when you put all of your eggs all in one basket.
If Libertarians, & Paul people, cannot accept the goals/tenets of the GOP, then they can GO AWAY & FORM THEIR OWN GROUP.
NO ONE IS STOPPING YOU!
It almost feels like the stalker boyfriend/girlfriend that won’t leave you alone when you keep telling them you don’t want them around anymore.

Badger40 on February 14, 2011 at 12:05 PM

remove the requirement for prescriptions for pharmaceuticals? How dare the state mandate commerce between a private company and adults!

+1
The slippery slope of TOO much liberty.
Happy medium somewhere. And that scenario surely ain’t it.

That was point from days again. We all have our line. Learning to respect others limits is the key.

hawkdriver on February 14, 2011 at 12:05 PM

was “my” point….

hawkdriver on February 14, 2011 at 12:06 PM

Learning to respect others limits is the key.

hawkdriver on February 14, 2011 at 12:05 PM

I can do that & still think they’re crazy.
But I have a coupla friends who I consider liberal 7 not too crazy.
Loads of crazy is a turnoff for me, however.

Badger40 on February 14, 2011 at 12:12 PM

Loads of crazy is a turnoff for me, however.

Badger40 on February 14, 2011 at 12:12 PM

I’m not sure what liberal 7 means. But again, Paul is not a man I would ever vote for. He would be my right/left limit. If you’re familiar with military terms, shooting outside those boundaries could cause more harm than good. So, if the man ever did (and he won’t) win a Republican primary, I’d just not vote the top of the ticket.

hawkdriver on February 14, 2011 at 12:29 PM

What took the YAF so long to expel him? This isn’t a recent philosophy of Ron Paul.

mizflame98 on February 14, 2011 at 12:51 PM

Has the thread burned itself out yet?

catmman on February 14, 2011 at 1:00 PM

What you have to understand is that the social conservatives are the ones who really ruined the GOP. Any GOP candidate has to pander to them to win any national primary which is why you have a guy like Huck leading a lot of polls even though this country is begging for SOMEONE, ANYONE with a lick of fiscal sense. Hell, Mitt faced the ‘Can a Mormon win a national primary?’ questions for a long time until people realized he was a fraud.

I’m not saying religion is ‘dumb,’ but the fact that it matters to so many people in politics says a lot.

Notorious GOP on February 14, 2011 at 12:17 AM

I disagree.

Those of us who declare our moral opposition to abortion, etc., or those who have unwieldy libertarian leanings are not the cause of the GOP’s ruin but rather those men and women who posed as conservatives and then pursued and imposed policies that were everything but, under the guise “pragmatism” or “bipartisanship” or “national security.” (When the Foreign Policy Journal concludes that the “DHS serves only one clear purpose: to provide unimaginable bonanzas for favored congressional districts around the United States, most of which face no statistically significant security threat at all.” then the jig is up. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/02/unconventional_wisdom?page=O%2C2)

And since there are – remarkably – sweet noises being made in some GOP circles about a Jeb Bush presidential run, then in ruins the GOP wants to stay.

I swear I will phone bank for Ron Paul himself if another member of the Bush “Hey, our brand of statism is swell ‘cause we care!” family enters the race.

Threshing Flora on February 14, 2011 at 1:28 PM

Threshing Flora on February 14, 2011 at 1:28 PM

That’s it.

maverick muse on February 14, 2011 at 4:16 PM

So why is CPAC even taken seriously. Ron Paul? Please!

These Libertarians do nothing but take legitimate votes away from people who can win. That’s why short of a Reagan candidate, we can’t put anyone up who can overcome the junk votes.

stacman on February 14, 2011 at 4:38 PM

Will never vote for Mitt Romney. Been a conserative since young man. Joined service at 17 when it wasn’t cool. Mitt Romney and several others who are “conserative” have not done anything to bring the conserative view about. Only 2 (two) people are doing things to espouse conseratism, that is Rush Limbough and Sarah Palin. They are doing what Romney should have been doing for years, but are willing to set back and let someone else do all the legwork to the public then at election time saying, ‘IT’S ME, IT’S ME. Can’t stand that.

gDavid on February 14, 2011 at 5:19 PM

As someone who has literally fought in this 10 year war and is getting ready to go again, I agree with Paul. I don’t believe we are defending the Constitution against foreign enemies in our fight in both Afghanistan and Iraq. I think the Neo-Cons have it wrong and it is bankrupting us. I would vote for Paul over any of the other Republican politicians out there and I won’t vote for any RINO – which includes the likely nominee Romney.

King of the Britons on February 14, 2011 at 5:31 PM

As someone who has literally fought in this 10 year war and is getting ready to go again, I agree with Paul. I don’t believe we are defending the Constitution against foreign enemies in our fight in both Afghanistan and Iraq. I think the Neo-Cons have it wrong and it is bankrupting us. I would vote for Paul over any of the other Republican politicians out there and I won’t vote for any RINO – which includes the likely nominee Romney.

King of the Britons on February 14, 2011 at 5:31 PM

That’s right, help guarantee that Obama gets another 4 years. He should be able to completely destroy the country by then. Although, the Neo-Con statement reveals your liberal bias.

As “King of the Britons” are you even eligible to vote in our country?

stacman on February 14, 2011 at 6:18 PM

Okay, I think I’m ready to get on the ABANDON CPAC Bandwagon.

When the HERITAGE FOUNDATION leaves CPAC you know there is a problem.

Excellent post from Star Parker.
http://townhall.com/columnists/starparker/2011/02/14/gay_conservative_is_an_oxymoron

PappyD61 on February 14, 2011 at 6:59 PM

Although, the Neo-Con statement reveals your liberal bias.

Calling Constitutional Conservatives liberally biased shows your ignorance, as does claiming that the neoconservative agenda to nation build in Islam be other than liberal.

The slurs against Ron Paul are fabrications concocted from different views of best means to preserving US Constitutional Governance and LIBERTY for Americans.

Those attacking Ron Paul have their own agenda, seeing him as a threat to their own monopoly on the Republican Party.

There is nothing un-American about preferring our Military be actively guarding our literal borders from invasion than remain posted specifically in West Germany and Japan still since 1945. Realistically, Sec. Rumsfeld, Sec. Gates and Presidents Bush and now Obama, are cutting the US Military size to only be able to respond to two simultaneous fronts. Read articles in the Air Force Magazine these past recent years to understand criticisms of this. Neither has sending our all-volunteer Military back on repeated deployments over 10 years and no end in sight, which is raising our troops suicide rate. There are legitimate criticisms of how our recent presidents have been utilizing our Military. And many within the retired Military community, free to express dissent, have strong disagreements with the PC Rules of Engagement that put our troops at severe disadvantage, and that they say actually set up our troops for failure in the field.

Don’t kneejerk “radical anti-American” response when arguments are discussed. What I see happening is that Ron Paul’s popularity amongst youth really set off Jordan Marks and other “compassionate conservative” Bush acolytes of socialist authoritarianism that yet manage the Republican establishment in Washington.

I also find it relevant for observation that “communism” is removed from the Sharon Statement, as if China Communism and Marxist Authoritarianism is not yet pervading our globe, and even the US Government. More revisionism, within the “conservative” gone revisionist neoconservative movement, is certainly note worthy, and an ill omen. As if “totalitarianism” is the only or biggest threat of the 21st Century. Bloggers disproved that false premise this past week in Egypts.

Reading Ron Paul’s responses to questions, I see that neoconservative bloggers have projected their own antagonisms as if Paul proposals. No where has Ron Paul presented a political agenda to substantiate the Muslim Brotherhood, only Obama’s National Intelligence Chief did that.

maverick muse on February 14, 2011 at 7:01 PM

That’s right, help guarantee that Obama gets another 4 years. He should be able to completely destroy the country by then. Although, the Neo-Con statement reveals your liberal bias.
As “King of the Britons” are you even eligible to vote in our country?

stacman on February 14, 2011 at 6:18 PM

By refusing to vote for another worthless politician who only claims to believe in the Constitutional ideals to win the votes of the gullible like stacman, I won’t be guaranteeing that Obama gets another four years to ruin the country. Those who refuse to vote their principles will. Am I eligible to vote in the country – Yes. Like I stated – I have been at the business end of Neo-Con policy. What have you ever done?

King of the Britons on February 14, 2011 at 8:23 PM

King of the Britons on February 14, 2011 at 5:31 PM

Then you need to be a person of principle and get out of said service.

Its easy to make statements of principle. If you don’t believe in what your doing, you need to stop doing it at the earliest possible moment.

Otherwise you’re no better than Herr Doktor – you talk a good game, but you’re really full of crap.

I’ve got nothing against what you’re saying per se, but you can’t hide behind the flag while talking shite about what that flag is doing.

catmman on February 15, 2011 at 10:30 AM

catmman on February 15, 2011 at 10:30 AM

So because I disagree with policy and wouldn’t vote to perpetuate it, I am somehow without principle?

King of the Britons on February 15, 2011 at 6:58 PM

Fox News uses last year’s footage of the announcement of the winner (featuring booos of Paul) and presents it as this year’s footage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwo0Iyrh1Zk

EEEEEEEEEEEEDIOTS

Dave Rywall on February 15, 2011 at 11:34 PM

So because I disagree with policy and wouldn’t vote to perpetuate it, I am somehow without principle?

King of the Britons on February 15, 2011 at 6:58 PM

No.

Because you p!$$ and moan about said policy, yet actively participate in it and receive a paycheck from it – you are without principle.

A person of true principle wouldn’t actively support policy he disagrees with – unless he is somehow forced or coerced against his will. If you’re in the military, then you volunteered. No one forced you to join and no one is forcing you to stay. You are “voting to perpetuate” it by your continued service. There are more types of votes than those at the ballot box.

I understand how you may not like how things are run, but you should either ‘grin and bear it’ as is your duty, or get out since you are so vehemently opposed to it.

Otherwise you’re a hypocrite whiner who has no real principles.

catmman on February 16, 2011 at 1:22 PM

No.

Because you p!$$ and moan about said policy, yet actively participate in it and receive a paycheck from it – you are without principle.

A person of true principle wouldn’t actively support policy he disagrees with – unless he is somehow forced or coerced against his will. If you’re in the military, then you volunteered. No one forced you to join and no one is forcing you to stay. You are “voting to perpetuate” it by your continued service. There are more types of votes than those at the ballot box.

I understand how you may not like how things are run, but you should either ‘grin and bear it’ as is your duty, or get out since you are so vehemently opposed to it.

Otherwise you’re a hypocrite whiner who has no real principles.

catmman on February 16, 2011 at 1:22 PM

Please point out in the post you initially cited, the pi$$ing and moaning.

So, what point exactly are you trying to prove by pointing out that I have a problem with official policy, choose to speak out about it, but still voluntarily serve? That I, the individual who posts here as King of the Britons, have no principles (you are actually rather clear on that)? Or that humans in general, in order to survive and prosper, must weigh the pros and cons of all of their decisions and sometimes have to compromise on what they believe to be a principle in order to maximize their perceived utility? Because I am sure, that you, during your time in the Air Force as a through and through conservative, never once openly disagreed with official policy. I am sure of it, or otherwise you too would be a man without principle. Or was your point to make sure that I didn’t believe that I was a man of principle (make sure that I didn’t think to highly of myself), simply pointing out that all must compromise at some level on their principles because otherwise, on year 19, day 364 of a military career, one would HAVE to resign if one didn’t agree with official policy? Because even remaining silent about it, “grin[ning] and bear[ing]” it – if it didn’t coincide with your conservative principles, you would HAVE to stop serving, lest you be a hypocrite (albeit, a non-whining one).

I would like to know what exacly you are trying to do with your responses to my posts. I disagree with Neo-Con policy. I support Ron Paul over RINOs. You don’t feel the need to argue the demerits of supporting Paul, or the merits of an opposed point of view, but just attack?

King of the Britons on February 16, 2011 at 11:54 PM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7