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 2 3 4 5 7

annoyinglittletwerp on February 12, 2011 at 8:31 PM

Ooops. cross posted. Now you know what I think of you darlin’
I love you, my sister.

OmahaConservative on February 12, 2011 at 8:34 PM

gary4205 on February 12, 2011 at 8:23 PM

Actually they think she’s a warmonger Zionist neo-con .
The only ‘non’ neo-con’s are: Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, and Andrew Napolitano.

I refer back once again to the TownHall Straw poll FB page.
I learned all sorts of new things there.
///

annoyinglittletwerp on February 12, 2011 at 8:35 PM

Yep. I know of LCR and Pr. Miller.
I am an involved Lutheran.

OmahaConservative on February 12, 2011 at 8:36 PM

Baxter Green:Is that the week long,Sodom and Gamorh
ahem,parade,that is blocked off for a week
in San Fransico,that was on Zombie`s web
site!!:)

canopfor on February 12, 2011 at 7:44 PM

Yes it is…
The same streets where you can’t smoke nor can you buy a happy meal……

Baxter Greene on February 12, 2011 at 8:36 PM

OmahaConservative on February 12, 2011 at 8:34 PM

Awww.
*smiles*

So-do you know anything about the Neanderthal’s-other than my friend-that inhabit the LCR?

annoyinglittletwerp on February 12, 2011 at 8:36 PM

Yep. I know of LCR and Pr. Miller.
I am an involved Lutheran.

OmahaConservative on February 12, 2011 at 8:36 PM

Sorry-didn’t see that comment.

Do tell.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 12, 2011 at 8:37 PM

annoyinglittletwerp on February 12, 2011 at 8:36 PM

I know *all* important Lutherans.
I am one.
;)

OmahaConservative on February 12, 2011 at 8:39 PM

I think the Daily Kooks try to have a convention too!..:)

Dire Straits on February 12, 2011 at 7:45 PM

Yes they do.
It is the one that Pelosi and many other democratic leaders support and attend then tell the public that all those “truthers and socialist” Kos kids don’t represent the democratic party.

Baxter Greene on February 12, 2011 at 8:39 PM

Dire,OC,Baxter Greene,and anyone else i missed,nite all,
it was A Blast——————————–:)

canopfor on February 12, 2011 at 8:18 PM

G’night

Baxter Greene on February 12, 2011 at 8:42 PM

Baxter Greene on February 12, 2011 at 8:42 PM

I missed you during my hiatus.

OmahaConservative on February 12, 2011 at 8:46 PM

My BP (according to Omron is 111 over 64 with a pulse rate of 83.
For you medical types, is that good or bad?

OmahaConservative on February 12, 2011 at 8:51 PM

O.C.,

I’d think the first 2 numbers are good, the heart rate is up a bit…I’m not a doctor, I just play on online…

Gohawgs on February 12, 2011 at 8:53 PM

I play one…

Dang D.S.

Gohawgs on February 12, 2011 at 8:54 PM

I’d think the first 2 numbers are good, the heart rate is up a bit…I’m not a doctor, I just play on online…

Gohawgs on February 12, 2011 at 8:53 PM

I’m gonna’ die! Be nice to me in the testimonials or whatever they are called.

OmahaConservative on February 12, 2011 at 8:55 PM

For you medical types, is that good or bad?

OmahaConservative on February 12, 2011 at 8:51 PM

BP is excellent. Pulse is a little above the norm-but not by much.

111 over 64?
With my meds mine still stays around 130/70. Dang heredity! My pulse has always been naturally low.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 12, 2011 at 8:58 PM

I spent a short time as a CNA.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 12, 2011 at 8:59 PM

Lutherans don’t have them eulogies. We sit at the foot of The Cross. It’s all about what Ghrist did for us at Calvary. Not what we do/did.

OmahaConservative on February 12, 2011 at 8:59 PM

Took it again
105 over 62
88 pulse

OmahaConservative on February 12, 2011 at 9:02 PM

I smoke Winston cigarettes.
Full strength, re box shorts.

OmahaConservative on February 12, 2011 at 9:04 PM

red

OmahaConservative on February 12, 2011 at 9:04 PM

121/66
85
Why the wild fluctuation?

OmahaConservative on February 12, 2011 at 9:09 PM

121/66
85
Why the wild fluctuation?

OmahaConservative on February 12, 2011 at 9:09 PM

If you take it repeatedly it will actually raise your BP.

Try it again later. It’ll probably have leveled off again.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 12, 2011 at 9:11 PM

annoyinglittletwerp on February 12, 2011 at 9:11 PM

I hate my Omron machine and wish my cute little doctor hadn’t talked me into it. She is in so much trouble.

OmahaConservative on February 12, 2011 at 9:15 PM

106/61
86
I’m finished.
Ready for bed.
If I die tonight, please forgive me.

OmahaConservative on February 12, 2011 at 9:18 PM

I hate my Omron machine and wish my cute little doctor hadn’t talked me into it. She is in so much trouble.

OmahaConservative on February 12, 2011 at 9:15 PM

My silver fox PCP has forbidden me to own my own scale or blood pressure monitor. LoL
He’s a liberal but Meee-OW!

annoyinglittletwerp on February 12, 2011 at 9:20 PM

120/80 is the ideal, as I recall. Sustained 100 BPM and over is tacycardia if resting. I know this from working with med. personnel as a LEO, so obviously I’m not a medical expert.

Any other symptoms?

G M on February 12, 2011 at 9:21 PM

annoyinglittletwerp on February 12, 2011 at 9:20 PM

I’d trade you, but I ain’t so GOProud.
I guess what is, is.
I like my view.

OmahaConservative on February 12, 2011 at 9:22 PM

Any other symptoms?

G M on February 12, 2011 at 9:21 PM

Yes. I love whisky.

OmahaConservative on February 12, 2011 at 9:23 PM

I have that same symptom.

G M on February 12, 2011 at 9:43 PM

SIGH
Why bother even having another election, if this is the way things are going to go on our side?
Why not just give Obama permanent leadership?

ToddonCapeCod on February 12, 2011 at 9:48 PM

I made the mistake of checking out Breitbart’s RP thread.
Read some of the comments-especially on page 2.
They will
make you see red.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 12, 2011 at 9:59 PM

My, how the world would end if we were to send a pro-life, fiscally conservative, constitutionally-consistent man into the White House.

How it would all come crashing down if we put a man into the White House who has a mission to audit and/or eliminate an organization that has de-valued our currency by about 95% since it’s creation.

The sad fate that awaits us if we had a President who felt our military and money to support it was better served defending US instead of spending money WE DON’T HAVE to defend an 8,500 square mile stretch of land half-way around the world. A land with it’s own military, it’s own defense system – including a nuclear arsenal – and a first-world nation at that.

Oh, the hell that would await us over that.

(Is the sarcasm tag REALLY necessary here?)

Badger State Dave on February 12, 2011 at 10:01 PM

My, how the world would end if we were to send a pro-life, fiscally conservative, constitutionally-consistent man into the White House.

That would be ok, if it’s not a nazi-hugging conspiracy loon like Ron Paul.

G M on February 12, 2011 at 10:10 PM

Badger State Dave on February 12, 2011 at 10:01 PM

Read the comments-especially the one’s that mention Jewish-controlled media, or Zionism, or… in the Breitbart link and then get back to me.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 12, 2011 at 10:12 PM

That would be ok, if it’s not a nazi-hugging conspiracy loon like Ron Paul.

G M on February 12, 2011 at 10:10 PM

Badger State Dave on February 12, 2011 at 10:01 PM

Read the comments-especially the one’s that mention Jewish-controlled media, or Zionism, or… in the Breitbart link and then get back to me.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 12, 2011 at 10:12 PM

Comments by who? The random nobody loon that any and every candidate finds himself or herself supported by? Big Deal!

There is a reason that I am NOT ANY PART OF ANY nutso, wacko group that I have seen characterized on this thread alone, yet still find myself supporting this man and his meassage for the Presidency.

His message makes the most sense. The gap between conservatism and us on the libertarian-right is really not that large, despite what many on either side would like to pretend.

Sound fiscal policy, completely different from what we’ve seen out of Washington, DC since…Calvin Coolidge, maybe? That’s a winner.

Protection of our civil liberties from an ever growing and overreaching government with no constitutional authority to do so? Another winner.

Audit and eliminate the very organization that has de-valued our currency? Should it have really taken this long to look into what the hell the Federal Reserve is doing?

We’re over $14 trillion in the hole, and we need to continue what we’re doing with our military and spending money on foreign nations? If that ain’t an example of government math at it’s finest, what is?

So who gives a rat’s ass if some nutjobs out there support him? Last I checked, the constitution still allowed even the most idiotic, crazy, and f*cked-in-the-head to have their civil liberties, too.

Badger State Dave on February 12, 2011 at 10:22 PM

You figure that we’ll curl up into a ball and the global jihad will just forget about us? You think Ron Paul could do anything but get Obama a second term?

G M on February 12, 2011 at 10:27 PM

You’re watching the implosion of American power as we speak with the current administration. Want Ron Paul (as if he had a snowball’s chance of being elected) to finish it off?

There is never a vacuum of power. If we aren’t dominant, someone else will be. I don’t like the alternatives to us. Do you?

G M on February 12, 2011 at 10:32 PM

You figure that we’ll curl up into a ball and the global jihad will just forget about us? You think Ron Paul could do anything but get Obama a second term?

G M on February 12, 2011 at 10:27 PM

At $14+ trillion in debt, our hand is already forced, and the jihadists KNOW IT! SO DO OUR CREDITORS!!!

We are not, nor were we ever designed to be, in a perpetual state of war, at an enormous cost to us, while policing the globe. Even if we were, at some point, our financial position has to have us at or very, very near our breakpoint.

How are we going to defend ourselves without the ability to finance it?

Sorry, it’s long past time to get the rest of the world off of the American teat, and have them provide for themselves. We are just too broke anymore.

Badger State Dave on February 12, 2011 at 10:34 PM

So who gives a rat’s ass if some nutjobs out there support him? Last I checked, the constitution still allowed even the most idiotic, crazy, and f*cked-in-the-head to have their civil liberties, too.

Badger State Dave on February 12, 2011 at 10:22 PM

Name me another current GOP hopeful who tends to attract neo-nazis, 9-11 truthers, and holocaust revisionists.
You can’t-because there isn’t one.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 12, 2011 at 10:35 PM

You’re watching the implosion of American power as we speak with the current administration. Want Ron Paul (as if he had a snowball’s chance of being elected) to finish it off?

There is never a vacuum of power. If we aren’t dominant, someone else will be. I don’t like the alternatives to us. Do you?

G M on February 12, 2011 at 10:32 PM

Finish it off? We can’t afford it anymore. IT ALREADY IS “finished off.”

Yeah. It pretty much sucks that someone like China, or someone else we aren’t friendly with is in a far better position to “fill that vacuum.” It sucks even more knowing we owe so much money to someone like China that they already basically are “filling that vacuum,” just only in a slower method.

Perhaps restoring REAL fiscal sanity to Congress, and the White House, may at least allow us to be better prepared to defend ourselves from any future onslaught.

This just cannot continue.

Badger State Dave on February 12, 2011 at 10:38 PM

Name me another current GOP hopeful who tends to attract neo-nazis, 9-11 truthers, and holocaust revisionists.
You can’t-because there isn’t one.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 12, 2011 at 10:35 PM

Those are NOT the only nut-cases and idiots in the world now, are they?

Badger State Dave on February 12, 2011 at 10:40 PM

Those are NOT the only nut-cases and idiots in the world now, are they?

Badger State Dave on February 12, 2011 at 10:40 PM

No, but when that’s how a significant number of your supporters can be identified, that should scare you.

massrighty on February 12, 2011 at 10:42 PM

Our military budget doesn’t even begin to rival social security and medicare’s costs. Having forces and infrastructure pre-positioned globally is cheaper and easier than trying to move needed forces and supplies when under fire.

Hey, let’s turn over the Pacific to the People’s Liberation Army Navy. Think of the savings!

G M on February 12, 2011 at 10:43 PM

Name me another current GOP hopeful who tends to attract neo-nazis, 9-11 truthers, and holocaust revisionists.
You can’t-because there isn’t one.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 12, 2011 at 10:35 PM

However, if you want to associate like that…

The neo-nazis are certainly anti-illegal immigration. Any hopeful who would be considered tough on immigration has their interest.

Truthers and holocaust revisionists? Ok, you got me there. I guess since I am not part of either group, I don’t have an answer for their obnoxiousness and foolishness. When you meet one, ask them why they like Paul. Then tell me, so we both know.

Badger State Dave on February 12, 2011 at 10:48 PM

Yep.
So are his frothing, foaming at the mouth rabid followers…

OmahaConservative on February 12, 2011 at 6:43 PM

In case anyone doubts this, go take a look at the comments on this YouTube video of Donald Trump’s speech:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7mjFg6dh5I&feature=player_embedded

JannyMae on February 12, 2011 at 10:48 PM

No, but when that’s how a significant number of your supporters can be identified, that should scare you.

massrighty on February 12, 2011 at 10:42 PM

THANK YOU!

annoyinglittletwerp on February 12, 2011 at 10:48 PM

Our military budget doesn’t even begin to rival social security and medicare’s costs. Having forces and infrastructure pre-positioned globally is cheaper and easier than trying to move needed forces and supplies when under fire.

Hey, let’s turn over the Pacific to the People’s Liberation Army Navy. Think of the savings!

G M on February 12, 2011 at 10:43 PM

Our military budget is more than large enough where we have absolutely no choice whatsoever but to make cuts. And we have no choice whatsoever but to expect other people to provide for their own defense, or at least pitch in on the cost of maintaining a military presence on their behalf.

Yes, we need to make cuts, and BIG CUTS, on those other programs you mention. They need to be eliminated, since there’s no Constitutional authority for them, anyways.

Badger State Dave on February 12, 2011 at 10:51 PM

Palin did not attend. The CPAC did everything to diminish any credibility to lead. I am not a Palin supporter, but her realization the conservatives were going to eat their own was obvious. Ariel Durant said,”A great civilization cannot be destroyed from without until it destroys itself from within”. Barry Soetero is making that happen and there is nothing you can do to stop him.

volsense on February 12, 2011 at 10:51 PM

Badger State Dave on February 12, 2011 at 10:48 PM

Your answer was not responsive to either altwerp, or to my post.

Can you name another GOP hopeful who packs in the cranks like Ron Paul? Only Lyndon LaRouche seems to fit the bill…

massrighty on February 12, 2011 at 10:53 PM

With all our current spending and two hot wars, it’s still a smaller percentage than what we were spending at times during the cold war, IIRC.

So what do we sacrifice? Air superiority? No more aircraft carriers? No more nukes?

What does the Ron Paul military look like?

G M on February 12, 2011 at 10:58 PM

No, but when that’s how a significant number of your supporters can be identified, that should scare you.

massrighty on February 12, 2011 at 10:42 PM

THANK YOU!

annoyinglittletwerp on February 12, 2011 at 10:48 PM

Scares me more that we are so broke we can’t realistically defend America in a time of true necessity and catastrophe. Alex Jones and his audience of seventeen ufo chasers or whatever the hell they are don’t really phase me so much. $14+ trillion in debt? THAT has my attention.

The Stormchasers, or Stormtroopers, or whatever the hell they call themselves? All nine of them? What are they gonna do? Really? Not very high on my “Big Problem” list when compared to civil liberty violations like the “Patriot Act.”

The truthers? When those 32 people sober up, they’ll see that while their distrust of the government is wise, they picked the wrong issue. Just wait until their 10-year hangover wears off. De-valued currency, however, affects those of us who laugh at those morons, too.

Again, so some whack-jobs like Paul. Why? I don’t know. He’s not a neo-nazi. He has never agreed with the truthers. Never once heard him deny the holocaust. I’d be a lot more concerned if he were doing those things. I’d look elsewhere for my support, because he wouldn’t have it.

Badger State Dave on February 12, 2011 at 10:59 PM

Your answer was not responsive to either altwerp, or to my post.

Can you name another GOP hopeful who packs in the cranks like Ron Paul? Only Lyndon LaRouche seems to fit the bill…

massrighty on February 12, 2011 at 10:53 PM

How was it not?

Badger State Dave on February 12, 2011 at 11:00 PM

Ron Paul will never, never get my vote. He hates the military. He thinks we are murderers and has expressed understanding with the insurgents who have killed us overseas.

Anybody but Ron Paul.

hawkdriver on February 12, 2011 at 11:00 PM

With all our current spending and two hot wars, it’s still a smaller percentage than what we were spending at times during the cold war, IIRC.

So what do we sacrifice? Air superiority? No more aircraft carriers? No more nukes?

What does the Ron Paul military look like?

G M on February 12, 2011 at 10:58 PM

How about we start with no more military bases around the globe unless the host nations who want us to continue there kick in more for the bill? How about taking a good, hard look at the hardware we’re spending on now, and focusing our limited resources on projects that the military actually wants and needs? How about a more competitive bidding process on these purchases? How about we stop with “Nation building” exercises while we have such a large debt to pay down?

Let’s begin there, and see what kind of cost savings we can manage first. If it ain’t enough, along with cuts to entitlements and other unconstitutional domestic social spending, then we’ll have to look at more.

Badger State Dave on February 12, 2011 at 11:05 PM

Ron Paul will never, never get my vote. He hates the military. He thinks we are murderers and has expressed understanding with the insurgents who have killed us overseas.

Anybody but Ron Paul.

hawkdriver on February 12, 2011 at 11:00 PM

How does he “hate the military?”

Badger State Dave on February 12, 2011 at 11:08 PM

Again, so some whack-jobs like Paul. Why? I don’t know. He’s not a neo-nazi. He has never agreed with the truthers. Never once heard him deny the holocaust. I’d be a lot more concerned if he were doing those things. I’d look elsewhere for my support, because he wouldn’t have it.

Badger State Dave on February 12, 2011 at 10:59 PM

He’s gotten endorsements from StormFront-neo-Nazi group- and the ‘Institute for Historical Review’-a Holocaust revisionist paper.And there are a H&ll of a lot more than ’32′ RP supporters that are truthers. The MAJORITY of RP supporters that I’ve met-and I’ve met quite a few-are truthers and Jew-haters. If such people are drawn to RP because of his ideas then it’s high-time RP look inward and figure out WHY!

Btw: If you have FB and the page is still up-check out TownHall’s presidential Straw poll page.
The ronulans were out in all their ‘glory’.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 12, 2011 at 11:08 PM

What are those projects the military really wants and needs?

G M on February 12, 2011 at 11:09 PM

I am far from an expert on this RP thing but I can’t say I have ever run into a female RP supporter. Invariably they are male.

Is that what others have observed?

Geochelone on February 12, 2011 at 7:31 PM

I’ve met a few female RP supporters. They’re just as crazy as the males.

One girl was extremely cute until she said that she was a RP supporter. Then I lost all interest.

Conservative Samizdat on February 12, 2011 at 11:10 PM

annoyinglittletwerp on February 12, 2011 at 11:08 PM

I don’t even need to look to his associations and supporters. His very words have made him the only Republican I cannot, will not and will implore other people not to vote for.

hawkdriver on February 12, 2011 at 11:11 PM

Again, so some whack-jobs like Paul. Why? I don’t know. He’s not a neo-nazi. He has never agreed with the truthers. Never once heard him deny the holocaust. I’d be a lot more concerned if he were doing those things. I’d look elsewhere for my support, because he wouldn’t have it.

Badger State Dave on February 12, 2011 at 10:59 PM

He’s gotten endorsements from StormFront-neo-Nazi group- and the ‘Institute for Historical Review’-a Holocaust revisionist paper.And there are a H&ll of a lot more than ’32′ RP supporters that are truthers. The MAJORITY of RP supporters that I’ve met-and I’ve met quite a few-are truthers and Jew-haters. If such people are drawn to RP because of his ideas then it’s high-time RP look inward and figure out WHY!

Btw: If you have FB and the page is still up-check out TownHall’s presidential Straw poll page.
The ronulans were out in all their ‘glory’.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 12, 2011 at 11:08 PM

And Obama was endorsed by the Klan. lol I doubt it makes him a white supremicist. I doubt it’s the reason he’s such a shitty President, too.

What are those projects the military really wants and needs?

G M on February 12, 2011 at 11:09 PM

I am in no way affiliated with the United States military, so I can’t say for sure. But with a budget that large, common sense alone would dictate it’s full of waste, unnecessary spending, and projects nobody wants and needs. That’s a better question for someone who is in a position to answer that. I defer.

One girl was extremely cute until she said that she was a RP supporter. Then I lost all interest.

Conservative Samizdat on February 12, 2011 at 11:10 PM

Any chance you got her number? lol Just clowning around.

Badger State Dave on February 12, 2011 at 11:17 PM

Badger,

See, that’s the problem. The Ronulan sound-bites that pass for policy statements fall apart under any close examination.

G M on February 12, 2011 at 11:20 PM

How does he “hate the military?”

Badger State Dave on February 12, 2011 at 11:08 PM

Imagine
by Ron Paul | Texas Straight Talk

Imagine for a moment that somewhere in the middle of Texas there was a large foreign military base, say Chinese or Russian. Imagine that thousands of armed foreign troops were constantly patrolling American streets in military vehicles. Imagine they were here under the auspices of “keeping us safe” or “promoting democracy” or “protecting their strategic interests.”

Imagine that they operated outside of US law, and that the Constitution did not apply to them. Imagine that every now and then they made mistakes or acted on bad information and accidentally killed or terrorized innocent Americans, including women and children, most of the time with little to no repercussions or consequences. Imagine that they set up check points on our soil and routinely searched and ransacked entire neighborhoods of homes. Imagine if Americans were fearful of these foreign troops, and overwhelmingly thought America would be better off without their presence.

Imagine if some Americans were so angry about them being in Texas that they actually joined together to fight them off, in defense of our soil and sovereignty, because leadership in government refused or were unable to do so. Imagine that those Americans were labeled terrorists or insurgents for their defensive actions, and routinely killed, or captured and tortured by the foreign troops on our land. Imagine that the occupiers’ attitude was that if they just killed enough Americans, the resistance would stop, but instead, for every American killed, ten more would take up arms against them, resulting in perpetual bloodshed. Imagine if most of the citizens of the foreign land also wanted these troops to return home. Imagine if they elected a leader who promised to bring them home and put an end to this horror.

Imagine if that leader changed his mind once he took office.

The reality is that our military presence on foreign soil is as offensive to the people that live there as armed Chinese troops would be if they were stationed in Texas. We would not stand for it here, but we have had a globe straddling empire and a very intrusive foreign policy for decades that incites a lot of hatred and resentment towards us.

According to our own CIA, our meddling in the Middle East was the prime motivation for the horrific attacks on 9/11. But instead of re-evaluating our foreign policy, we have simply escalated it. We had a right to go after those responsible for 9/11, to be sure, but why do so many Americans feel as if we have a right to a military presence in some 160 countries when we wouldn’t stand for even one foreign base on our soil, for any reason? These are not embassies, mind you, these are military installations. The new administration is not materially changing anything about this. Shuffling troops around and playing with semantics does not accomplish the goals of the American people, who simply want our men and women to come home. 50,000 troops left behind in Iraq is not conducive to peace any more than 50,000 Russian soldiers would be in the United States.

Shutting down military bases and ceasing to deal with other nations with threats and violence is not isolationism. It is the opposite. Opening ourselves up to friendship, honest trade and diplomacy is the foreign policy of peace and prosperity. It is the only foreign policy that will not bankrupt us in short order, as our current actions most definitely will. I share the disappointment of the American people in the foreign policy rhetoric coming from the administration. The sad thing is, our foreign policy WILL change eventually, as Rome’s did, when all budgetary and monetary tricks to fund it are exhausted.

What is emboldened is Ron Paul’s opinion of what the US has been doing overseas. He made this radio address when my unit was deployed and engaged in combat with the “patriots” he seems to have found a kindred understanding with. He is of course making reverse comparisons and he’s describing anti-Iraqi and anti-Afghani insurgents as patriots and us as the war criminals. He would have to hate us to say that publicly when his military was deployed.

hawkdriver on February 12, 2011 at 11:21 PM

I am in no way affiliated with the United States military, so I can’t say for sure. But with a budget that large, common sense alone would dictate it’s full of waste, unnecessary spending, and projects nobody wants and needs. That’s a better question for someone who is in a position to answer that. I defer.

Allen West addressed that today. As I have said before, military spending can be cut without diminishing our forces. There is a lot of beauracract that could be cut. And a lot of graft, etc. He pointed out that we have more admirals than we have ships. Something wrong there. I’m a big military supporter, but there is a lot of graft, waste, and behind-the-scenes payola that needs to be eliminated.

predator on February 12, 2011 at 11:23 PM

I didn’t “bold” all the right statements. Meh, read the whole thing. It’s chock full of anti-military hate.

hawkdriver on February 12, 2011 at 11:24 PM

“beauracract” Oops. “Bureaucracy”–typing and booze. Bad mix.

predator on February 12, 2011 at 11:26 PM

hawkdriver on February 12, 2011 at 11:21 PM

From the point of view of the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, what did he say that was wrong, though?

Because, you know what, if some foreign country was in my country doing all that, I would be pissed, too. If some foreign country was giving money away to a regional enemy of our nation, I would be pissed, too. If some foreign country was selling military equipment to a regional enemy of my country, I would be pissed, too.

Perception is 99% of reality. That’s what those people SEE. They may be 1,000% WRONG, but to them, it don’t matter. Paul gets that.

We may, and do, have the best of intentions when we agree to use our military and our money elsewhere around the world. I think all of us here can agree on that point, right? That don’t mean there aren’t unintended consequences, either.

Badger State Dave on February 12, 2011 at 11:28 PM

What Thomas Jefferson learned
from the Muslim book of jihad
By Ted Sampley
U.S. Veteran Dispatch
January 2007

Democrat Keith Ellison is now officially the first Muslim United States congressman. True to his pledge, he placed his hand on the Quran, the Muslim book of jihad and pledged his allegiance to the United States during his ceremonial swearing-in.

Capitol Hill staff said Ellison’s swearing-in photo opportunity drew more media than they had ever seen in the history of the U.S. House. Ellison represents the 5th Congressional District of Minnesota.

The Quran Ellison used was no ordinary book. It once belonged to Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States and one of America’s founding fathers. Ellison borrowed it from the Rare Book Section of the Library of Congress. It was one of the 6,500 Jefferson books archived in the library.

Ellison, who was born in Detroit and converted to Islam while in college, said he chose to use Jefferson’s Quran because it showed that “a visionary like Jefferson” believed that wisdom could be gleaned from many sources.

There is no doubt Ellison was right about Jefferson believing wisdom could be “gleaned” from the Muslim Quran. At the time Jefferson owned the book, he needed to know everything possible about Muslims because he was about to advocate war against the Islamic “Barbary” states of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Tripoli.

Ellison’s use of Jefferson’s Quran as a prop illuminates a subject once well-known in the history of the United States, but, which today, is mostly forgotten – the Muslim pirate slavers who over many centuries enslaved millions of Africans and tens of thousands of Christian Europeans and Americans in the Islamic “Barbary” states.

Over the course of 10 centuries, Muslim pirates cruised the African and Mediterranean coastline, pillaging villages and seizing slaves.

The taking of slaves in pre-dawn raids on unsuspecting coastal villages had a high casualty rate. It was typical of Muslim raiders to kill off as many of the “non-Muslim” older men and women as possible so the preferred “booty” of only young women and children could be collected.

Young non-Muslim women were targeted because of their value as concubines in Islamic markets. Islamic law provides for the sexual interests of Muslim men by allowing them to take as many as four wives at one time and to have as many concubines as their fortunes allow.

Boys, as young as 9 or 10 years old, were often mutilated to create eunuchs who would bring higher prices in the slave markets of the Middle East. Muslim slave traders created “eunuch stations” along major African slave routes so the necessary surgery could be performed. It was estimated that only a small number of the boys subjected to the mutilation survived after the surgery.

When American colonists rebelled against British rule in 1776, American merchant ships lost Royal Navy protection. With no American Navy for protection, American ships were attacked and their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under the control of the “Dey of Algiers”–an Islamist warlord ruling Algeria.

Because American commerce in the Mediterranean was being destroyed by the pirates, the Continental Congress agreed in 1784 to negotiate treaties with the four Barbary States. Congress appointed a special commission consisting of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, to oversee the negotiations.

Lacking the ability to protect its merchant ships in the Mediterranean, the new America government tried to appease the Muslim slavers by agreeing to pay tribute and ransoms in order to retrieve seized American ships and buy the freedom of enslaved sailors.

Adams argued in favor of paying tribute as the cheapest way to get American commerce in the Mediterranean moving again. Jefferson was opposed. He believed there would be no end to the demands for tribute and wanted matters settled “through the medium of war.” He proposed a league of trading nations to force an end to Muslim piracy.

In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the “Dey of Algiers” ambassador to Britain.

The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress’ vote to appease.

During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey’s ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

In a later meeting with the American Congress, the two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam “was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

For the following 15 years, the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800.

Not long after Jefferson’s inauguration as president in 1801, he dispatched a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress.

Declaring that America was going to spend “millions for defense but not one cent for tribute,” Jefferson pressed the issue by deploying American Marines and many of America’s best warships to the Muslim Barbary Coast.

The USS Constitution, USS Constellation, USS Philadelphia, USS Chesapeake, USS Argus, USS Syren and USS Intrepid all saw action.

In 1805, American Marines marched across the desert from Egypt into Tripolitania, forcing the surrender of Tripoli and the freeing of all American slaves.

During the Jefferson administration, the Muslim Barbary States, crumbling as a result of intense American naval bombardment and on shore raids by Marines, finally officially agreed to abandon slavery and piracy.

Jefferson’s victory over the Muslims lives on today in the Marine Hymn, with the line, “From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli, We fight our country’s battles in the air, on land and sea.”

It wasn’t until 1815 that the problem was fully settled by the total defeat of all the Muslim slave trading pirates.

Jefferson had been right. The “medium of war” was the only way to put and end to the Muslim problem. Mr. Ellison was right about Jefferson. He was a “visionary” wise enough to read and learn about the enemy from their own Muslim book of jihad.

G M on February 12, 2011 at 11:29 PM

hawkdriver on February 12, 2011 at 11:21 PM

From the point of view of the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, what did he say that was wrong, though?

I take it you agree with his analysis?

Because, you know what, if some foreign country was in my country doing all that, I would be pissed, too. If some foreign country was giving money away to a regional enemy of our nation, I would be pissed, too. If some foreign country was selling military equipment to a regional enemy of my country, I would be pissed, too.

Then we are war criminals.

Perception is 99% of reality. That’s what those people SEE. They may be 1,000% WRONG, but to them, it don’t matter. Paul gets that.

Is it a US Congressman’s job to promote our enemies perception, even if it’s wrong?

We may, and do, have the best of intentions when we agree to use our military and our money elsewhere around the world. I think all of us here can agree on that point, right? That don’t mean there aren’t unintended consequences, either.

Badger State Dave on February 12, 2011 at 11:28 PM

That would be a very tame characterization of what he stated.

hawkdriver on February 12, 2011 at 11:32 PM

So, I guess Ron Paul blamed the Barbary Pirates on our foreign policy, right?

I guess that Thomas Jefferson guy didn’t understand the constitution or something…..

G M on February 12, 2011 at 11:32 PM

I am in no way affiliated with the United States military, so I can’t say for sure. But with a budget that large, common sense alone would dictate it’s full of waste, unnecessary spending, and projects nobody wants and needs. That’s a better question for someone who is in a position to answer that. I defer.

Allen West addressed that today. As I have said before, military spending can be cut without diminishing our forces. There is a lot of beauracract that could be cut. And a lot of graft, etc. He pointed out that we have more admirals than we have ships. Something wrong there. I’m a big military supporter, but there is a lot of graft, waste, and behind-the-scenes payola that needs to be eliminated.

predator on February 12, 2011 at 11:23 PM

In my opinion, Allen West has a voice on this issue I would be interested in hearing. I’m sure there are others with a military background, current or former, who can come up with some reasonable, responsible ideas to manage cost, keep our armed forces ready when needed, and keep our attention focused on America’s defense.

Dirty little secret for you all. Those of us with a libertarian outlook like a strong military, too. We just want it used properly, and in a way we can afford. We don’t have that right now.

Badger State Dave on February 12, 2011 at 11:33 PM

Based on the straw poll results CPAC is irrelevant. I am glad I paid no attention at all to it, again.

FireBlogger on February 12, 2011 at 11:36 PM

Really? What was the correct response to 9/11?

G M on February 12, 2011 at 11:37 PM

G M on February 12, 2011 at 11:29 PM

Your comment was well done.

hawkdriver on February 12, 2011 at 11:37 PM

hawkdriver on February 12, 2011 at 11:21 PM

From the point of view of the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, what did he say that was wrong, though?

I take it you agree with his analysis?

Because, you know what, if some foreign country was in my country doing all that, I would be pissed, too. If some foreign country was giving money away to a regional enemy of our nation, I would be pissed, too. If some foreign country was selling military equipment to a regional enemy of my country, I would be pissed, too.

Then we are war criminals.

Perception is 99% of reality. That’s what those people SEE. They may be 1,000% WRONG, but to them, it don’t matter. Paul gets that.

Is it a US Congressman’s job to promote our enemies perception, even if it’s wrong?

We may, and do, have the best of intentions when we agree to use our military and our money elsewhere around the world. I think all of us here can agree on that point, right? That don’t mean there aren’t unintended consequences, either.

Badger State Dave on February 12, 2011 at 11:28 PM

That would be a very tame characterization of what he stated.

hawkdriver on February 12, 2011 at 11:32 PM

Do I agree with that analysis? Does it matter if I do? THOSE PEOPLE DO! THAT was the point.

Does that make us war criminals? Probably not. But it sure as hell explains why we are STILL over there “winning the peace” “changing minds and hearts” and “promoting democracy.”

As far as speaking to what the other side perceives, I fail to see where that is a problem.

You can’t defeat your enemies if you don’t know your enemy, and understanding their point of view is a great way to learn how to defeat them. That holds true in just about anything in life.

Badger State Dave on February 12, 2011 at 11:38 PM

Yes, Predator, no one has ever tried to cut waste, fraud and abuse from the defense budget before.

G M on February 12, 2011 at 11:39 PM

Dear Ron Paul supporters, Thank you for Obama.

Connie on February 12, 2011 at 11:40 PM

Dirty little secret for you all. Those of us with a libertarian outlook like a strong military, too. We just want it used properly, and in a way we can afford. We don’t have that right now.

Badger State Dave on February 12, 2011 at 11:33 PM

I would certainly believe that about someone like you who comes here and expresses reasonable Conservative Libertarian ideals. But I’m afraid I do not believe that about Ron Paul. His extreme opinions about our military, foreign policy and Israel in particular, unnerves me.

hawkdriver on February 12, 2011 at 11:40 PM

Really? What was the correct response to 9/11?

G M on February 12, 2011 at 11:37 PM

Obviously, bringing justice to those who attacked us was the correct response, but now almost ten years later, we are still “responding.” That is a problem. I’m sure all of us could come up with at least one reason why we still are engaged in this, and be right, but the fact remains we still are engaged.

Badger State Dave on February 12, 2011 at 11:41 PM

Why did Ron Paul vote to authorize the military use of force in Afghanistan after 9/11?

G M on February 12, 2011 at 11:44 PM

David Horowtiz Keynote at CPAC 2011

Connie on February 12, 2011 at 11:45 PM

Dirty little secret for you all. Those of us with a libertarian outlook like a strong military, too. We just want it used properly, and in a way we can afford. We don’t have that right now.

Badger State Dave on February 12, 2011 at 11:33 PM

You’ll get no argument from me on that.

predator on February 12, 2011 at 11:45 PM

Al qaeda expected us to do a Clinton and fire off some token cruise missiles and then give up. Was that what we should have done in A-stan?

G M on February 12, 2011 at 11:46 PM

Do I agree with that analysis? Does it matter if I do? THOSE PEOPLE DO! THAT was the point.

It matters to me. I unabashedly disagree with his very premise. I would be curious as to whether you agreed or not.

Does that make us war criminals? Probably not.

Probably not? We’re “probably” not war criminals? Dave, you’re going to have to be frank in your opinion with me. I’ve killed a lot of men in this war. I’ve ordered my men to kill a lot of people. Are you telling me I’ve killed in vain?Unjustly?

But it sure as hell explains why we are STILL over there “winning the peace” “changing minds and hearts” and “promoting democracy.”

How?

As far as speaking to what the other side perceives, I fail to see where that is a problem.

He does more than that. The analogy he painted expresses his agreement with them.

You can’t defeat your enemies if you don’t know your enemy, and understanding their point of view is a great way to learn how to defeat them. That holds true in just about anything in life.

Badger State Dave on February 12, 2011 at 11:38 PM

You defeat this enemy by killing him.

hawkdriver on February 12, 2011 at 11:46 PM

Dirty little secret for you all. Those of us with a libertarian outlook like a strong military, too. We just want it used properly, and in a way we can afford. We don’t have that right now.

Badger State Dave on February 12, 2011 at 11:33 PM

You’ll get no argument from me on that.

Remember Muslims for Ron Paul?

predator on February 12, 2011 at 11:45 PM

Connie on February 12, 2011 at 11:48 PM

predator on February 12, 2011 at 11:45 PM

Just do not get them started on WTC # 7..:)

Dire Straits on February 12, 2011 at 11:49 PM

I would certainly believe that about someone like you who comes here and expresses reasonable Conservative Libertarian ideals. But I’m afraid I do not believe that about Ron Paul. His extreme opinions about our military, foreign policy and Israel in particular, unnerves me.

hawkdriver on February 12, 2011 at 11:40 PM

Yet they make perfect sense to me. lol

It is what it is.

Trust me when I say this. I am not that far removed from a time when I would NEVER have given Paul the time of day. He and his philosophies took a LONG time to convince me that he is right on this.
Is he perfect? No. Of course not. Is he our “Savior?” No. He’s a man, same as me. Probably puts his pants on one leg at a time like all of us. lol

I’m also sure there is some issues I have disagreements with him on. I disagree with Gary Johnson on abortion, but agree with almost everything he has to say on other issues, for example. I disagree with Mitch Daniels on looking at a VAT, but I like his record as Governor, and having met people from Indiana who unanimously liked having him as Governor (Dems, Reps, Indys, Conservatives, Liberals, Moderates, and libertarians) tells me he can be effective. Palin I have disagreements with, but not on everything. I like Huckabee’s stance on the FAIR Tax, but pretty much nothing else. Romney? Wouldn’t wipe my ass with the best part of that phony.

I ain’t running, so I have to settle for someone I don’t agree with 100% of the time. Paul is one I agree with the most. And I agree with him enough where I can go vote FOR him, and not feel like I have to vote AGAINST Obama, or pick third party, or just stay home.

Badger State Dave on February 12, 2011 at 11:49 PM

blew the quote from predator, which was

you’ll get no argument from me on that.

predator on February 12, 2011 at 11:45 PM

Connie on February 12, 2011 at 11:51 PM

What was the Ron Paul WWII strategy? Secure our borders as the Axis dominates the world? Wait until Germany bombs New York with a nuke?

Here is a clue, after two world wars, the lesson America got was that isolationism means a bigger, worse war once your are forced to get in.

G M on February 12, 2011 at 11:51 PM

This straw poll is all you need that CPAC has jumped the shark. To give Ron Paul the plurality first place vote in the Presidential straw poll means that CPAC is not a serious event with respect to foreign policy, military matters and national security.

On the occasion of Reagan’s 100th birthday, it is appropriate to remember that the Reagan coalition was of national security conservatives, economic conservatives and social conservatives. CPAC seems to be saying with its actions there is no need for the national security conservatives and social conservatives. It is hard to imagine a more idiotic blunder.

Phil Byler on February 12, 2011 at 11:51 PM

predator on February 12, 2011 at 11:23 PM

Any organization civilian or government can trim budget. And we should. I do think what Dr. Paul has in mind is neutering the military though.

hawkdriver on February 12, 2011 at 11:52 PM

You defeat this enemy by killing him.

hawkdriver on February 12, 2011 at 11:46 PM

Like this?

Yeah.

http://tinyurl.com/ajnnop

predator on February 12, 2011 at 11:53 PM

Paul is one I agree with the most. And I agree with him enough where I can go vote FOR him, and not feel like I have to vote AGAINST Obama, or pick third party, or just stay home.

Cool. Thanks for Obama.

Connie on February 12, 2011 at 11:53 PM

Remember Muslims for Ron Paul?

predator on February 12, 2011 at 11:45 PM

Connie on February 12, 2011 at 11:48 PM

Can’t say that I do, Connie, as I pretty much ignore the guy. I also can’t say that it surprises me.

predator on February 12, 2011 at 11:55 PM

Badger State Dave on February 12, 2011 at 11:49 PM

This is lazy thinking.

Connie on February 12, 2011 at 11:55 PM

You defeat this enemy by killing him.

hawkdriver on February 12, 2011 at 11:46 PM

Ideally, you still want to cause the least amount of death and destruction to achieve a goal of victory. Same as any conflict. Some take more, some less. But to get to victory the fastest, it’s easiest if and when you know the opposition’s game plan. It’s how you learn their philosophy to combat, and how you can expose weaknesses to exploit for your own gain. And THAT is what I heard and saw when Paul said that. You saw it as a knock on the military on the ground. I did not.

John Murtha would be a better example of someone who said things that could be considered a knock on the military, and even his statements were candy coated compared to what John Kerry said in front of Congress in the 70s.

Badger State Dave on February 12, 2011 at 11:55 PM

I do think what Dr. Paul has in mind is neutering the military though.

hawkdriver on February 12, 2011 at 11:52 PM

So do I. He gets no credibility from me.

predator on February 12, 2011 at 11:56 PM

Badger State Dave on February 12, 2011 at 11:49 PM

This is lazy thinking.

Connie on February 12, 2011 at 11:55 PM

What’s lazy thinking, Connie?

Badger State Dave on February 12, 2011 at 11:56 PM

predator on February 12, 2011 at 11:53 PM

Not sure what you were driving at with that video there my friend.

hawkdriver on February 12, 2011 at 11:58 PM

Badger State Dave on February 12, 2011 at 11:55 PM

You chose to not answer a few poignant questions there Dave. Do I assume you believe the killing was unjust?

It’s a yes or no answer really.

hawkdriver on February 12, 2011 at 11:59 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 7