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 6 7

Ideally, you still want to cause the least amount of death and destruction to achieve a goal of victory.

Baloney. You want to inflict as much damage, death, and destruction on the enemy as possible. The job of the military in was is to kill enemy soldiers and destroy their ability to wage war. “Kill people and break things.”

What you are suggesting is what was done in some of the wars since WWII (Viet Nam, and to some degree Korea).

“Let’s make war like nice guys.” Doesn’t work, especially if the other side doesn’t play that way, and they don’t.

predator on February 13, 2011 at 12:00 AM

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

Not every war is WWII revisited.

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 12:00 AM

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.

This. Ron Paul refuses to believe we are under any kind of stealth attack or that the world is endangered by Islamists.

Connie on February 13, 2011 at 12:01 AM

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

hawkdriver on February 12, 2011 at 11:58 PM

“You defeat your enemy by killing him.” I’m just agreeing. Thought I’d throw a vid of some Talibans gettin’ their just due for emphasis. I’m completely in your camp.

predator on February 13, 2011 at 12:02 AM

Ok, secure our borders until Saddam or Iran hands off a nuke to a terrorist group that detonates in a shipping container in New York.

G M on February 13, 2011 at 12:02 AM

F I X E D!!

btw, I will never vote for ron paul, huckabee, romney, et al. It’s gonna be Gov Palin or at least some other strong yet un-named conservative or we’re gonna cruise through 4 more years of socialism.

long_cat on February 13, 2011 at 12:07 AM

hawkdriver on February 12, 2011 at 11:58 PM

“You defeat your enemy by killing him.” I’m just agreeing. Thought I’d throw a vid of some Talibans gettin’ their just due for emphasis. I’m completely in your camp.

predator on February 13, 2011 at 12:02 AM

Okay. That’s what I thought, Pred. No offense. We just take a beating in the comments for that video because the Taliban posts there saying we’re lying that we posted that as shooting them. That’s actually a varmint hunting video and prairie dogs getting shot posted by someone besides the military.

You have a patriots heart though.

hawkdriver on February 13, 2011 at 12:10 AM

Dave, are you not going to answer that question?

hawkdriver on February 13, 2011 at 12:11 AM

btw, I will never vote for ron paul, huckabee, romney, et al. It’s gonna be Gov Palin or at least some other strong yet un-named conservative or we’re gonna cruise through 4 more years of socialism.

long_cat on February 13, 2011 at 12:07 AM

If we maintain or expand our numbers in the house and can gain control of the senate, then Barry will be pretty much neutered policy-wise. So I’m inclined to agree. No Rinos for pres. Gimme a conservative or I’ll leave it blank. (We’re allowed to do that in Illinois.)

predator on February 13, 2011 at 12:11 AM

“Let’s make war like nice guys.” Doesn’t work, especially if the other side doesn’t play that way, and they don’t.

predator on February 13, 2011 at 12:00 AM

And a great comment here too.

hawkdriver on February 13, 2011 at 12:13 AM

That’s actually a varmint hunting video and prairie dogs getting shot posted by someone besides the military.

You have a patriots heart though.

hawkdriver on February 13, 2011 at 12:10 AM

LOL! Man! Those are some big prairie dogs though! (That aren’t on a prairie by the way.)
And I appreciate the compliment and reciprocate.
Hey Taliban, maybe they’re “mountain dogs?”

predator on February 13, 2011 at 12:15 AM

Ideally, you still want to cause the least amount of death and destruction to achieve a goal of victory.

Baloney. You want to inflict as much damage, death, and destruction on the enemy as possible. The job of the military in was is to kill enemy soldiers and destroy their ability to wage war. “Kill people and break things.”

What you are suggesting is what was done in some of the wars since WWII (Viet Nam, and to some degree Korea).

“Let’s make war like nice guys.” Doesn’t work, especially if the other side doesn’t play that way, and they don’t.

predator on February 13, 2011 at 12:00 AM

Baloney, yourself. If you could get an enemy to submit destroying only an abandoned outhouse, that’s all you need to do. If it takes more, you do more. Way to take only half of that statement of mine.

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

Sorry, overlooked your questions. I apologize.

Are we war criminals? I don’t believe so. That’s why I said probably not. Now, ask the whole rest of the world (whose opinion ain’t worth the paper it’s written on to me, if you want MY opinion), we only were with Bush as President. Seems to have died down to almost nothing since we got the F.I.B.-in-Chief.

Did you give orders in vain? I hope not. You did what you felt was right, and were ordered to. You agreed to that deal when you signed up. But, I think you may have, simply because after ten years of conflict, we STILL are nowhere.

As far as your other question…

Ain’t that some of the answers we were given for why we still had to say in Iraq and Afghanistan after initial victories were achieved? I seem to remember that. If I wrong, I’ll stand corrected, but I don’t think so.

Look, it’s our job to respond to an attack. A perfectly reasonable use of force. Use as much as necessary when someone commits an unjust act of aggression against your life, liberty, and property. Al-qaeda did exactly that. But it is not our job to continue with these nation-building exercises that have gotten us nowhere except great cost in money, and loss of life in it’s wake. It’s high time we take a real close look at what the hell we are still doing there.

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 12:15 AM

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.

This. Ron Paul refuses to believe we are under any kind of stealth attack or that the world is endangered by Islamists.

Connie on February 13, 2011 at 12:01 AM

And with a $14 trillion debt, how do you propose we keep paying for this, Connie?

Here’s a hint…cutting domestic social spending and entitlements alone ain’t getting us there. Here’s another hint…our creditors can at any time decide to cut us off with these loans, too. We can’t afford this. How are we gonna afford more?

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 12:21 AM

Al qaeda thrives in failed states. Turning Iraq into a failed state would have seriously impacted the entire middle east, and not in a positive way. Iraq in many ways was the most secular arab nation and the best opportunity to create a third option between the pro-western strongman and the “Islamic Republic” model as seen in Iran, and probably Egypt soon.

We withdrew from A-stan after the Soviets bailed, and look what we got for our help to the oppressed muslim umma. Nation-building in A-stan seems less than successful, but aside from a show of force and speedy withdrawl, what was the better option?

G M on February 13, 2011 at 12:24 AM

Baloney, yourself. If you could get an enemy to submit destroying only an abandoned outhouse, that’s all you need to do. If it takes more, you do more. Way to take only half of that statement of mine.

If that enemy, in its entirety, is contained in that outhouse, then yes. But you are still inflicting as much damage as possible on that enemy. I’m not talking collateral here. Although that is sometimes unavoidable.

You don’t just destroy one craphole in the outhouse and think that will suffice. You destroy the entire outhouse. My point remains valid.

predator on February 13, 2011 at 12:26 AM

Baloney, yourself. If you could get an enemy to submit destroying only an abandoned outhouse, that’s all you need to do. If it takes more, you do more. Way to take only half of that statement of mine.

If that enemy, in its entirety, is contained in that outhouse, then yes. But you are still inflicting as much damage as possible on that enemy. I’m not talking collateral here. Although that is sometimes unavoidable.

You don’t just destroy one craphole in the outhouse and think that will suffice. You destroy the entire outhouse. My point remains valid.

predator on February 13, 2011 at 12:26 AM

If that is what it takes. I don’t remember Reagan turning Libya into a sheet of glass, yet that was a successful mission, was it not? He didn’t need to. I’m sure there are other examples where the military in it’s history didn’t need to completely destroy a whole nation to secure a victory.

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 12:31 AM

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 12:15 AM

Thanks for the response. I will say that Americans were told a long time ago this would be a long war. I am afraid a lot of America get bored with even critical events or suffer from “Oh look shiny.”

We cannot oversimplify the wars like Ron Paul has. We invaded Afghanistan because of 9-11. Now even that war has found a lack of favor in his eyes. Iraq it seems is the war that people seem to forget had started with them Invading Kuwait. They forget the commitment to Operations Northern and Southern Watch and that our pilot were routinely attacked by Iraqi AA. And the entire world was convinced that Saddam Hussein has WMDs. They gassed entire villages with nerve agents. The world is better with him gone.

Is there room for debate? Yep.

Can we trim overseas involvement and bases? Yep.

Does Ron Paul use a very cartoonish characterization of US foreign policy and the US Military for his political gain? IMHO, yep.

Another one we’ll have to just disagree on, Dave. But then again, there is no chance he’ll get the nod. If he does, half of the Conservative electorate will sit it out.

hawkdriver on February 13, 2011 at 12:32 AM

Al qaeda thrives in failed states. Turning Iraq into a failed state would have seriously impacted the entire middle east, and not in a positive way. Iraq in many ways was the most secular arab nation and the best opportunity to create a third option between the pro-western strongman and the “Islamic Republic” model as seen in Iran, and probably Egypt soon.

We withdrew from A-stan after the Soviets bailed, and look what we got for our help to the oppressed muslim umma. Nation-building in A-stan seems less than successful, but aside from a show of force and speedy withdrawl, what was the better option?

G M on February 13, 2011 at 12:24 AM

Point understood on Al-qaeda. What gives them the traction though, to grow in a failed state?

Take an oppressed people, rally them around a common enemy, and convince them for religious reasons that destroying that enemy or those who help that enemy will give them glory in their version of heaven.

This is where our foreign policy bites us square in the ass. Those oppressed people see us propping up their brutal dictators, and their enemy in Israel, when we really have no business doing either. Is it really our fault Israel and it’s neighbors haven’t learned how to get along? Is it really our responsibility to make sure they do? NO. Is it really necessary or wise to lend support to people like Mabarak who oppressed his people, and probably skimmed billions off of us just because he said he’d play nice with us and Israel? Yeah, I don’t think so.

Which ties right back into more of that speech of Ron Paul’s about how what we do has consequences to what we end up having to do. And when we respond, we do look like just a new version of the same oppressive forces that those people have come to know their whole lives. Is it worth it? We’re foolish not to ask that question.

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 12:39 AM

If that is what it takes. I don’t remember Reagan turning Libya into a sheet of glass, yet that was a successful mission, was it not? He didn’t need to. I’m sure there are other examples where the military in it’s history didn’t need to completely destroy a whole nation to secure a victory.

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 12:31 AM

Right. He considered Ghaddafi to be the outhouse. Not the entire nation. Had he thought the entire nation was a threat to us, then perhaps a more extensive action would have been taken. We’ll never know. You recognize the threat, and you take it out or neutralize it. In its entirety, if possible. That will never change.

predator on February 13, 2011 at 12:41 AM

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 12:15 AM

Thanks for the response. I will say that Americans were told a long time ago this would be a long war. I am afraid a lot of America get bored with even critical events or suffer from “Oh look shiny.”

We cannot oversimplify the wars like Ron Paul has. We invaded Afghanistan because of 9-11. Now even that war has found a lack of favor in his eyes. Iraq it seems is the war that people seem to forget had started with them Invading Kuwait. They forget the commitment to Operations Northern and Southern Watch and that our pilot were routinely attacked by Iraqi AA. And the entire world was convinced that Saddam Hussein has WMDs. They gassed entire villages with nerve agents. The world is better with him gone.

Is there room for debate? Yep.

Can we trim overseas involvement and bases? Yep.

Does Ron Paul use a very cartoonish characterization of US foreign policy and the US Military for his political gain? IMHO, yep.

Another one we’ll have to just disagree on, Dave. But then again, there is no chance he’ll get the nod. If he does, half of the Conservative electorate will sit it out.

hawkdriver on February 13, 2011 at 12:32 AM

Point understood. I’m not saying that Iraq was an illegal war. I’m not saying we didn’t have the right to go there. I have questions as to why, and that’s perfectly reasonable.

I’ll concede that Paul probably wouldn’t get the nod. This assumes he even decides to run. But, if he does, he’s still the guy I agree with the most on the most issues, so he will have my vote. I can’t sit here and worry about who you or anyone else will pick. If he runs, I’m doing what I can to get him elected. If he don’t, I’ll consider another Republican, or third party, or stay home. It is my right and responsibility to cast my vote for who I feel is best for our country, and not vote for those who I feel will destroy it. And I’m done with “lesser of two evils” candidates. The lesser evil is still evil, in my book.

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 12:46 AM

http://tinyurl.com/6zezwdj

predator on February 13, 2011 at 12:47 AM

If that is what it takes. I don’t remember Reagan turning Libya into a sheet of glass, yet that was a successful mission, was it not? He didn’t need to. I’m sure there are other examples where the military in it’s history didn’t need to completely destroy a whole nation to secure a victory.

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 12:31 AM

Right. He considered Ghaddafi to be the outhouse. Not the entire nation. Had he thought the entire nation was a threat to us, then perhaps a more extensive action would have been taken. We’ll never know. You recognize the threat, and you take it out or neutralize it. In its entirety, if possible. That will never change.

predator on February 13, 2011 at 12:41 AM

We’re not disagreeing on anything here except that you’re using an analogy, and I wasn’t. Why keep making this point?

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 12:48 AM

Baloney, yourself. If you could get an enemy to submit destroying only an abandoned outhouse, that’s all you need to do.

I believe the analogy originated with you. But yeah, we can drop it anytime. I’ll not change your mind, nor you mine.

predator on February 13, 2011 at 12:54 AM

Badger,

Islam has had a religious mandate to conquer the earth for allah since mohammed invented it. Just as the Barbary pirates were justified by islamic theology to enslave Americans long before we had much of any impact on the world. The jihadists saw their victory over the Soviets as proof of allah’s blessing rather than something that happened because of our considerable assistance. Once one kuffar superpower was defeated, it was time to take out the other one, meaning us.

Our alliances with dictators originated mostly in the cold war, where we were moving pieces on the chessboard against the soviets. Would you have let the Soviets dominate the globe while we were aligned with NATO and Australia only?

Keep in mind that more than a few countries that were run by thugs we were aligned with grew into decent places under our wing. South Korea and Taiwan are two good examples of that.

Israel is an island of freedom, an outpost of western civilization and an ally that has done what we should have but did not more than once. Be glad the Saddam wasn’t a nuclear power in the first Gulf war because of Israel.

G M on February 13, 2011 at 12:57 AM

Badger,

Islam has had a religious mandate to conquer the earth for allah since mohammed invented it. Just as the Barbary pirates were justified by islamic theology to enslave Americans long before we had much of any impact on the world. The jihadists saw their victory over the Soviets as proof of allah’s blessing rather than something that happened because of our considerable assistance. Once one kuffar superpower was defeated, it was time to take out the other one, meaning us.

Our alliances with dictators originated mostly in the cold war, where we were moving pieces on the chessboard against the soviets. Would you have let the Soviets dominate the globe while we were aligned with NATO and Australia only?

Keep in mind that more than a few countries that were run by thugs we were aligned with grew into decent places under our wing. South Korea and Taiwan are two good examples of that.

Israel is an island of freedom, an outpost of western civilization and an ally that has done what we should have but did not more than once. Be glad the Saddam wasn’t a nuclear power in the first Gulf war because of Israel.

G M on February 13, 2011 at 12:57 AM

Not everything is the Cold War, either. Defeating an empire-building Soviet Union that was making inroads into the Western Hemisphere is one thing, this is different.

If the jihadists wanna attack us, they’re gonna do it. We all already know that. So, instead of wasting money on these nation-building exercises we CAN NOT afford, we’d be wise to save our limited resources for when we have an actual, direct threat, or a need to respond defensively.

Limiting our involvement around the world to only what is a direct need is not being weak. It’s being strong, because we won’t be pissing away dollars today, but instead saving them for when we need to use them. We can better afford to do so if and when that need occurs.

Let’s stop playing around overseas. Enough of the foreign aid – yes, to Israel, too. Let’s stop nation-building. Let’s bring everyone back stateside. We can do this, keep our troop level the same size (or even potentially grow it), save some money (or get larger and stronger for equal cost), and still be prepared for what may come later.

As far as Israel goes, I’m sorry, but since they didn’t become the 51st state, it’s time they put on their big boy pants and deal with their neighbors and enemies themselves. They have the capability to do so. They’re not our problem. I certainly don’t want anything bad to happen to them, and acknowledge something is likely to. But, we’re in no position to help them anymore. We can’t afford this bill. Helping out a friend is fine, but if you’re in debt, or going further into debt to do it, something’s really wrong with this picture.

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 1:09 AM

Fingers crossed, Iraq may become something worthwhile. What if it does? Remember Reagan didn’t write off the oppressed behind the iron curtain. He had a moral vision of protecting our freedom by spreading it to others. That’s still viable today.

As far as cutting off foreign aid, look at the numbers, it’s tiny, and actually some of the best money spent as far as accomplishing positive things on our behalf in the world.

G M on February 13, 2011 at 1:31 AM

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

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

Uhhh… occupy Baghdad???

No… what am i thinking… that would be retarded.

JohnGalt23 on February 13, 2011 at 1:42 AM

No, that was the correct response to an enemy that kept violating the ceasefire agreements and funding terrorist groups.

G M on February 13, 2011 at 1:45 AM

Fingers crossed, Iraq may become something worthwhile. What if it does? Remember Reagan didn’t write off the oppressed behind the iron curtain. He had a moral vision of protecting our freedom by spreading it to others. That’s still viable today.

As far as cutting off foreign aid, look at the numbers, it’s tiny, and actually some of the best money spent as far as accomplishing positive things on our behalf in the world.

G M on February 13, 2011 at 1:31 AM

Hopefully Iraq and Afghanistan both do. For as much as we have spent in money and lives, I think all can agree a positive outcome is what’s best. But, what if what those people want is different than what we want? Do they not also have the same right to set their own standards and visions in place like we did when we declared our independence? I honestly believe they do. Yes, there’s a chance that what they choose will be a problem for us, but it’s still their choice. We can’t force them to do it our way.

And foreign aid may be tiny, but it’s still more than we can afford to spend. Our hand has already been dealt on this one. We are largely throwing money away. It either isn’t appreciated by the recipients, or it’s skimmed off by crooked governments instead of going to the people we intend to help.

Time to tighten up the purse strings. Risky? Of course it’s risky. It’s riskier being broke.

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 1:46 AM

Oh yeah, been a long time since Saddam has gassed anyone, yes?

G M on February 13, 2011 at 1:46 AM

Do they not also have the same right to set their own standards and visions in place like we did when we declared our independence? I honestly believe they do

Did the Germans have the right to re-nazify under our occupation? Was it a mistake to force Japan to be a democracy?

G M on February 13, 2011 at 1:48 AM

No, that was the correct response to an enemy that kept violating the ceasefire agreements and funding terrorist groups.

G M on February 13, 2011 at 1:45 AM

Yet, Iraq didn’t attack us on 9/11. I’m sure they would have liked to, and I’m sure they made every effort to attempt to, but they didn’t pull it off.

The cease-fire violations by Iraq are one place where I break with most libertarians as far as calling it an illegal war. I think if Bush would’ve just kept his focus and attention on that specific point, and let the chips fall wherever on his other reasons, that argument would’ve been castrated before it could even be used.

That don’t mean I think we necessarily should have gone to war, just that it wasn’t illegal to, and I do understand the reasoning behind it.

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 1:51 AM

And foreign aid may be tiny, but it’s still more than we can afford to spend. Our hand has already been dealt on this one. We are largely throwing money away. It either isn’t appreciated by the recipients, or it’s skimmed off by crooked governments instead of going to the people we intend to help.

Sometimes buying the scumbags that run most of the countries on the planet is the best way to get things done. The sad truth of the world is that we are usually forced to choose between a local version of Tony Soprano over another version. There are very few would-be Thomas Jeffersons running around in man-dresses in the middle east.

G M on February 13, 2011 at 1:52 AM

Did the Germans have the right to re-nazify under our occupation? Was it a mistake to force Japan to be a democracy?

G M on February 13, 2011 at 1:48 AM

Like it or not, but yes, and yes.

So long as that is what they wanted, and didn’t act aggressively against others, they have the right to choose their own fate. If they wanted tyranny, then let them have it.

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 1:52 AM

And foreign aid may be tiny, but it’s still more than we can afford to spend. Our hand has already been dealt on this one. We are largely throwing money away. It either isn’t appreciated by the recipients, or it’s skimmed off by crooked governments instead of going to the people we intend to help.

Sometimes buying the scumbags that run most of the countries on the planet is the best way to get things done. The sad truth of the world is that we are usually forced to choose between a local version of Tony Soprano over another version. There are very few would-be Thomas Jeffersons running around in man-dresses in the middle east.

G M on February 13, 2011 at 1:52 AM

So why bother, then?

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 1:53 AM

Why are the “conservatives” so willing to spend money like it is endless? I was a big Bush supporter both times and finally learned my lesson. I have been awaken and signed up with the dude party nation (Mike Church). He leans Ron Paul style. I don’t agree with everything, but I have found I agree with more than I did with these big spending conservatives. I am part of the Republican executive group in my home town and we are all moving away from the Big War Machine and Big Spending Machine. If you cast people like Paul out then you will also be cast asside and be left with Obama. Paul is not your enemy people, he is using his time to awaken you to the out of control spending. What do you not understand about that?

livermush on February 13, 2011 at 1:55 AM

Because it furthers out policy agendas. A stable middle east is good for everyone on the planet. Things go bad there, as we may soon see, will hit us here in the US.

Even if we were allowed to drill for oil here, the price of oil is fungible and we’d damn well feel every bit of the impact.

G M on February 13, 2011 at 1:59 AM

Liver,

The only thing more expensive than winning a war is losing one. We are on the way out of Iraq and A-stan (probably). O-Barry has yet to bow our enemies into submission and I doubt he intends to invade anyone else (Good thing, eh Britain?).

G M on February 13, 2011 at 2:02 AM

Because it furthers out policy agendas. A stable middle east is good for everyone on the planet. Things go bad there, as we may soon see, will hit us here in the US.

Even if we were allowed to drill for oil here, the price of oil is fungible and we’d damn well feel every bit of the impact.

G M on February 13, 2011 at 1:59 AM

And by what measure has our foreign policy of intervention dating back to Woodrow Wilson managed to “stabilize” anything?

I have a hell of a time believing the only way to have a stable Middle East is to continue to throw good money after bad by giving Israel money, Palestine money, Egypt money, etc. etc. etc. and propping up brutal thug dictators in the region. We have no right, no business, and no ability to afford to do this anymore. It can’t go on.

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 2:14 AM

O-Barry has yet to bow our enemies into submission and I doubt he intends to invade anyone else

G M on February 13, 2011 at 2:02 AM

BHO plays the puppet CinC figurehead. If he were “real” he’d have fulfilled his campaign platform.

Perhaps you’ve not calculated the current revolts across Islam. The media news blurb tonight stated that the CIA has cells they are activating in each Muslim nation. The Islamist leaders are Westernized, educated abroad and tech savvy. The participate within the new middle class Muslim fundamentalists in every profession, and every caste.

You reference either absolute win/lose a war, ambivalent to the various degrees of military intervention and involvement.

I would point out that there is no “win” for us in either Afghanistan or Iraq. Americans can not win the hearts and minds of the Afghan tribes or the Iraqi Muslims. Via Morrissey’s CPAC luncheon, Rumsfeld already revised his version of why Bush went further militarily than his father had in the First Gulf War. Now that US nation building of an Islamic nation has proven a failure, we’re to shrug off the ultimate negative consequences, having done our duty. And pretend that nation building wasn’t the propaganda Bush used to rally bleeding heart liberal compassionate conservatives to recognize the moral duty of decent Americans to accomplish for Afghans and Iraqi’s own good. Tell that to the genocide victims in every Muslim region that the US does outreach programs of military intervention. Where are the indigenous Christians in the Middle East? They were tolerated and protected by the monster Hussein. But the US nation built new Iraq is exterminating the once flourishing ancient Iraqi Christian civilization that predates the Muslim invasion and lived peaceably together.

Perhaps you should reference Diane West’s collection of Afghanistan articles (Townhall) for a critical perspective from our Military.

Criticism of American foreign policy is NOT the same as criticism of our military, the finest in the world. Libertarians have the highest respect for our troops. Goldwater was Libertarian-Republican attacked as a war hawk by LBJ. Strategy and Policy have long term affects. And US attempts at nation building within the MidEast accompanied by suicidal PC Rules of Engagement are exercises in futility. And the POTUS who requires of his troops and taxpayers that never ending perpetuation need be impeached. Eisenhower set up the very destroyer of our constitutional governance that he warned Americans to beware upon his departure. As serious as the Cold War was, globalist authoritarianism has obviously augmented since Ike’s departure from office. And our Dollar is no longer backed by gold. And our economy is a house of cards — from a borrowed deck made in China.

maverick muse on February 13, 2011 at 3:56 AM

I like what I’ve heard about the Fed and currency issues from Paul. But…..He comes across on television as a Crazy old Grandpa that got out of the basement. you could have the greatest ideas in the history of mankind and if your televised image is nutjob you’re going nowhere.

Surely he’s not going to run in 2012?

And his thoughts on the Zionists sounds not too far from what Hitler, Jeremiah Wright and assorted other historical villains have said about “dem joos”.

PappyD61 on February 13, 2011 at 8:21 AM

cripe the blm is really taking this straw poll as gospel…

geez

cmsinaz on February 13, 2011 at 9:18 AM

Fudgepack 2011 will “go down” pardon the pun, as the end of the GOProud. If you are a homo, congrats!, you are Pop culture’s favorite son, but why must you have your own divisive group? “Proud”? Hardly

So Ron Paul wins the Fudgepack 2011 straw poll, big whoop. I guess he gets an office interior makeover?

Bleed_thelizard on February 13, 2011 at 9:42 AM

18 months of pure paultardom.

Can anyone survive it?

Inanemergencydial on February 13, 2011 at 10:06 AM

YAF canned Ron Paul yesterday as well.

Kermit on February 13, 2011 at 10:12 AM

I honestly do not know who is the wackier here, Paul himself or his looney tune followers?

I do know of one lady in our area who plastered her entire car, from front fender to rear bumper, stem to stern, with RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT! bumper stickers the last time Paul wasted his time running for office.

I do not even want to think of the number of razor blades it took to scrap those things off her car, but I am willing to bet big money with no fear of losing a dime of it that she is even now preparing to re-wallpaper her car with the upcoming 2012 version of Her Idol’s bumper stickers the microsecond they are off the press!

pilamaye on February 13, 2011 at 10:14 AM

I honestly do not know who is the wackier here, Paul himself or his looney tune followers?

I do know of one lady in our area who plastered her entire car, from front fender to rear bumper, stem to stern, with RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT! bumper stickers the last time Paul wasted his time running for office.

I do not even want to think of the number of razor blades it took to scrap those things off her car, but I am willing to bet big money with no fear of losing a dime of it that she is even now preparing to re-wallpaper her car with the upcoming 2012 version of Her Idol’s bumper stickers the microsecond they are off the press!

pilamaye on February 13, 2011 at 10:14 AM

Yeah, we’re just so crazy.

We want ridiculous and silly things like politicians who vote consistent with the Constitution. And crazy ideas like not involving ourselves in each and every problem around the globe. Sound currency? Why, that’s wacky!

I think voting for someone you “hope” is conservative and acts no different from a liberal Democrat makes you crazy. lol

Guess that’s just me.

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 10:28 AM

Stuff like this just makes people think that a lot of conservatives are idiots. Ron Paul is not a conservative, not really, he is a libertarian…and an anti Semite and a conspiracy mongering paranoid anti Semite at that.

The idea that he is just a great American voting with the Constitution is absurd. I am reading this book, Bloody Crimes, it is about the death pageant of Abraham Lincoln and the chase for Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy. It is worth noting that Jefferson Davis also believed he was supporting constitutional liberty. It is also worth noting that Ron Paul is not a fan of Abraham Lincoln.

Terrye on February 13, 2011 at 10:39 AM

Ok, seriously – a lot of interesting speeches seem to come from CPAC – but with the Ron Paul stuff, the whole thing immediately take a turn into “wtf are these people smoking” land, and renders the entire event something between irrelevant and actually suspect.

“By the end of the National Physics Symposium, many wonderful demonstrations and speeches were given by the likes of Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein – and even Sir Isaac Newton brought down the house with a rousing speech on the marvel and beauty of gravity, deftly skewering the “gravity isn’t real” crowd in a 45 minute stem-winder of a speech. And winning the NPS straw-poll for “Best Scientist” *again* this year – and no surprise here – was… Al Gore.”

C’mon.

Midas on February 13, 2011 at 10:44 AM

Stuff like this just makes people think that a lot of conservatives are idiots. Ron Paul is not a conservative, not really, he is a libertarian…and an anti Semite and a conspiracy mongering paranoid anti Semite at that.

The idea that he is just a great American voting with the Constitution is absurd. I am reading this book, Bloody Crimes, it is about the death pageant of Abraham Lincoln and the chase for Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy. It is worth noting that Jefferson Davis also believed he was supporting constitutional liberty. It is also worth noting that Ron Paul is not a fan of Abraham Lincoln.

Terrye on February 13, 2011 at 10:39 AM

Neither am I.

Call me crazy, but I guess I just don’t think too highly of a man who provoked fellow Americans into a conflict that cost us between 600,000-700,000 people, suspending habeas corpus, and other assorted terrible ideas and policies.

Lincoln was a tyrant.

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 10:44 AM

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 10:44 AM

Yes, you are crazy. At some point you must realize that the Jefferson Davis/Ron Paul point of view is not a winner.

Really Right on February 13, 2011 at 10:53 AM

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 10:44 AM

Yes, you are crazy. At some point you must realize that the Jefferson Davis/Ron Paul point of view is not a winner.

Really Right on February 13, 2011 at 10:53 AM

Winner or not, it don’t change what’s right. If that makes me crazy learning and understanding who Lincoln REALLY was, then so be it.

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 10:55 AM

Next you are going to tell us that Hitler was misunderstood?

Really Right on February 13, 2011 at 11:07 AM

Call me crazy, but I guess I just don’t think too highly of a man who provoked fellow Americans into a conflict that cost us between 600,000-700,000 people, suspending habeas corpus, and other assorted terrible ideas and policies.

Like ending slavery?

G M on February 13, 2011 at 11:10 AM

Connie on February 13, 2011 at 12:01 AM

Then frankly Connie you, are just as much the fool as Herr Doktor.

catmman on February 13, 2011 at 11:25 AM

Did the Germans have the right to re-nazify under our occupation? Was it a mistake to force Japan to be a democracy?

G M on February 13, 2011 at 1:48 AM

Like it or not, but yes, and yes.

So long as that is what they wanted, and didn’t act aggressively against others, they have the right to choose their own fate. If they wanted tyranny, then let them have it.

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 1:52 AM

Is there no way in which a Paultard will not delude themselves?

So it would have been alright to lets the Nazis and Imperialist Japanese re-establish themselves after we beat them in WWII, as long as they weren’t aggressive towards anyone else? How did that work out before we beat them in the war? Did you think this out before you wrote it?

If they wanted tyranny, then let them have it.

That’s just the thing with tyrants. They’re not wont to leave well enough alone and keep their tyranny within their own borders. RE: The same Nazis and Imperial Japanese in WWII.

catmman on February 13, 2011 at 11:36 AM

livermush on February 13, 2011 at 1:55 AM

Except for all of that sweet, sweet pork he constantly serves up, right?

catmman on February 13, 2011 at 11:38 AM

Yeah, we’re just so crazy.

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 10:28 AM

Well, you’re the ones who keep voting for the same guy who keeps getting his a$$ handed to him over and over again all the while expecting a different result.

catmman on February 13, 2011 at 11:41 AM

Next you are going to tell us that Hitler was misunderstood?

Really Right on February 13, 2011 at 11:07 AM

No, Hitler was also a tyrant. Next idiotic stretch of a point.

Call me crazy, but I guess I just don’t think too highly of a man who provoked fellow Americans into a conflict that cost us between 600,000-700,000 people, suspending habeas corpus, and other assorted terrible ideas and policies.

Like ending slavery?

G M on February 13, 2011 at 11:10 AM

Slavery existed on the day Lincoln was born, and also on the day he died. Next.

Did the Germans have the right to re-nazify under our occupation? Was it a mistake to force Japan to be a democracy?

G M on February 13, 2011 at 1:48 AM

Like it or not, but yes, and yes.

So long as that is what they wanted, and didn’t act aggressively against others, they have the right to choose their own fate. If they wanted tyranny, then let them have it.

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 1:52 AM

Is there no way in which a Paultard will not delude themselves?

So it would have been alright to lets the Nazis and Imperialist Japanese re-establish themselves after we beat them in WWII, as long as they weren’t aggressive towards anyone else? How did that work out before we beat them in the war? Did you think this out before you wrote it?

If they wanted tyranny, then let them have it.

That’s just the thing with tyrants. They’re not wont to leave well enough alone and keep their tyranny within their own borders. RE: The same Nazis and Imperial Japanese in WWII.

catmman on February 13, 2011 at 11:36 AM

Typically true, but that don’t change the fact that we have about as much right to tell others how to run their lives and their countries as they have to tell us how to do either.

livermush on February 13, 2011 at 1:55 AM

Except for all of that sweet, sweet pork he constantly serves up, right?

catmman on February 13, 2011 at 11:38 AM

It ain’t the pork that’s the issue, it’s the money being spent anyways that is.

If Ron Paul petitioned for a grand total of $0 of earmarks back to his district (which is full of people who pay federal taxes, too), does that money just disappear off the budget? Hell no it don’t. Someone else gets it.

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 11:45 AM

Yeah, we’re just so crazy.

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 10:28 AM

Well, you’re the ones who keep voting for the same guy who keeps getting his a$$ handed to him over and over again all the while expecting a different result.

catmman on February 13, 2011 at 11:41 AM

Touche.

I lose and vote for who I want. Who’s record in office matches what I believe is important, necessary, and correct.

You “win” with someone who says all the right things, but get the same end result basically you would have got in a loss.

Guess both conservatives and libertarians should just give up, since we’re screwed anyways, right?

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 11:48 AM

BSD,

Do states have the right to leave the Union? If so, would you like it if any were to do so?

Really Right on February 13, 2011 at 12:14 PM

BSD,

Do states have the right to leave the Union? If so, would you like it if any were to do so?

Really Right on February 13, 2011 at 12:14 PM

Do they have the right? Yes they sure do. States have as much right to declare their independence from us as we had to declare our independence from Great Britain.

Would I like it if they did? No. But what I’d like and what is someone’s right are two different things sometimes.

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 12:17 PM

So I should have voted for Herr Doktor in the last election since the outcome would have been the same anyway? Or in the case of Herr Doktor, maybe I shouldn’t have voted for him since he’s batsh!& crazy.

If Ron Paul petitioned for a grand total of $0 of earmarks back to his district (which is full of people who pay federal taxes, too), does that money just disappear off the budget? Hell no it don’t. Someone else gets it.

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 11:45 AM

That’s exactly right. You cannot claim to be a fiscal stalwart while backloading spending bills you know will pass with pork, then vote against the bill you know will pass and then claim some higher plane of morality when it comes to spending.

I’m not against anyone who pays taxes ‘getting their money back’. But what does that sound more like, fiscal conservatism or Obama-type redistribution?

If Herr Doktor wants that money back in his district, then let congress vote on it in a separate bill – not as an attachment.

Taxes are necessary to an extent, we all know that. Its the amount of taxes involved and what the money is going to. If there is a need for a shrimp hatchery in Herr Doktors district, then let the residents of that district fund it themselves. Neither you nor Herr Doktor can guarantee none of my tax money is going to fund your pet projects.

Herr Doktor should be working to fix the process, not become more involved in it for the sake of ‘fairness’. To be consistent is the key. Herr Doktor isn’t, contrary to the cultist narrative.

catmman on February 13, 2011 at 12:19 PM

“There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.”
–Henry David Thoreau

The one at CPAC was Ron Paul, and the establishment and their dupes hate him for it.

Bush was right. There is no conservative movement. He fundamentally changed the Republican party…into another progressive party. Though his administration was the final nail, it would be unfair to solely credit him with the death of conservatism. I mean, think about it. What exactly have conservatives “conserved” over the last 100+ years but the left’s “achievements?”

Intervention and home and abroad, the steady annulment of the Constitution, and breaking the bank to keep our glorious Welfare-Warfare State running. It’s how the Republicrats roll.

Go team!

Rae on February 13, 2011 at 12:41 PM

“There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.”
–Henry David Thoreau

The one at CPAC was Ron Paul, and the establishment and their dupes hate him for it.

Rae on February 13, 2011 at 12:41 PM

And he was “hacking at those roots of evil” with what exactly?

A huge ‘pork’ loin?

catmman on February 13, 2011 at 12:47 PM

And he was “hacking at those roots of evil” with what exactly?

A huge ‘pork’ loin?

catmman on February 13, 2011 at 12:47 PM

lol, mental note to always read catmman’s comments.

hawkdriver on February 13, 2011 at 12:53 PM

I want to point out a few things that Ronulans never seem to want to acknowledge.

A. Ron Paul’s earmarks are not for the good of his constituents as he claims. They go to people like ACORN type groups, ExxonMobil, Dow Chemical, BASF, BP, etc…
B. Ron Paul has colluded with the likes of Code Pink & MoveOn.
C. Ron Paul’s Revolution of 2008 is likely to received a LOT of small donations via those prepaid credit cards from Soros and the Middle East, as a test run for the Obama campaign AND because the like his Anti-America banter.

No serious Libertarian or Conservative has any business supporting this senile, naive munchkin. He is an embarrassment to sane logical thinking.

Kermit on February 13, 2011 at 12:55 PM

That’s exactly right. You cannot claim to be a fiscal stalwart while backloading spending bills you know will pass with pork, then vote against the bill you know will pass and then claim some higher plane of morality when it comes to spending.

I’m not against anyone who pays taxes ‘getting their money back’. But what does that sound more like, fiscal conservatism or Obama-type redistribution?

If Herr Doktor wants that money back in his district, then let congress vote on it in a separate bill – not as an attachment.

Taxes are necessary to an extent, we all know that. Its the amount of taxes involved and what the money is going to. If there is a need for a shrimp hatchery in Herr Doktors district, then let the residents of that district fund it themselves. Neither you nor Herr Doktor can guarantee none of my tax money is going to fund your pet projects.

Herr Doktor should be working to fix the process, not become more involved in it for the sake of ‘fairness’. To be consistent is the key. Herr Doktor isn’t, contrary to the cultist narrative.

catmman on February 13, 2011 at 12:19 PM

Well, since neither you or I have any figures available showing how much federal taxes come out of his district compared against how much federal money goes back into it, we can’t say for sure if those citizens are net contributors or drains on the federal spending.

Also, I agree basically as far as earmarks go. I find myself consistently irritated on earmark spending, especially earmarks unrelated to to the bill to begin with. I would be perfectly fine with making every piece of spending done separated from other bills and voted on separately.

But earmarks are still a minor symptom to a major disease. The spending (and rules and regulations and strings attached) is what’s the REAL issue. Again, even if Paul asked for NOTHING back for his district, the spending STILL exists. Voting against (consistently) the initial spending to begin with IS a fiscally conservative position.

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 12:58 PM

The oldest Libertarian/Conservative youth group in the U.S., YAF, shiite canned RP from its board of advisers yesterday.

http://www.yaf.com/blog_post/show/57

Kermit on February 13, 2011 at 12:58 PM

I want to point out a few things that Ronulans never seem to want to acknowledge.

A. Ron Paul’s earmarks are not for the good of his constituents as he claims. They go to people like ACORN type groups, ExxonMobil, Dow Chemical, BASF, BP, etc…
B. Ron Paul has colluded with the likes of Code Pink & MoveOn.
C. Ron Paul’s Revolution of 2008 is likely to received a LOT of small donations via those prepaid credit cards from Soros and the Middle East, as a test run for the Obama campaign AND because the like his Anti-America banter.

No serious Libertarian or Conservative has any business supporting this senile, naive munchkin. He is an embarrassment to sane logical thinking.

Kermit on February 13, 2011 at 12:55 PM

A. Maybe or maybe not. No different than anyone else.
B. Proof?
C. Proof? Not just on pre-paid cards, but on who bought them?

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 1:00 PM

The oldest Libertarian/Conservative youth group in the U.S., YAF, shiite canned RP from its board of advisers yesterday.

http://www.yaf.com/blog_post/show/57

Kermit on February 13, 2011 at 12:58 PM

And…? So they have a fundamental difference. Oh well. They removed him over that fundamental difference. Seems perfectly reasonable to me to do so.

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 1:03 PM

Voting against (consistently) the initial spending to begin with IS a fiscally conservative position.

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 12:58 PM

Again, its only consistent if he isn’t backloading those bills he votes against with pork.

To be truly consistent, he would ask for nothing and vote against the bills. If his constituents are truly as on board with the man as is oft stated and simply not in love with their pulled ‘pork’ sammich’s – they won’t mind.

Right?

On a tech note: BSD, you really need to block quote the pulled comments you use in your posts just to make your responses easier to read.

catmman on February 13, 2011 at 1:05 PM

A. F’ing YES. I’ve read beyond the titles such as “For Free Trade” and also that at least Dow Chemical sold off its BRAND NEW maintenance dredging equipment (I was involved in that) when earmarks started coming in for the Feds to pay for dredging outside of the ship channel and alongside their docks. Same goes for ExxonMobil’s Baytown, TX refinery and BP’s Texas City Refinery. Then there was the earmark to a phony Al Sharpton backed non-profit to treat “veterans” with substance abuse disorders in a city with few of them and to be operated by a group which donated to his campaign.
B. They were part of some of his rallies, like that 10%er Adam Kokesh. And a few friends have witnessed those meetings in his DC congressional offices.
C. No proof but something that I’m working on investigating.

To say that everyone else does this is A. not exactly true and B. avoiding his lies about being anti-”corporatist”

He ain’t all that and a bag of chips likes he makes himself out to be.

Kermit on February 13, 2011 at 1:09 PM

catmman on February 13, 2011 at 12:47 PM

For crying out loud, are you clowns being deliberately obtuse, or have you been duped again by the establishment hacks?

Earmarks are a triviality as far as spending goes. Not only that, when you ban them, all you’re doing is handing tax dollars to the executive branch so it can decide how to spend it. But you’ve been told all this already, repeatedly.

Whatever. I’m not as optimistic as RP. You people are obviously ineducable. That, or as resistant to admitting that you’re wrong as the Marxists are (another thing you have in common).

Off the cliff we go! Weeee!

Rae on February 13, 2011 at 1:11 PM

On a tech note: BSD, you really need to block quote the pulled comments you use in your posts just to make your responses easier to read.

catmman on February 13, 2011 at 1:05 PM

Catmann, I’m still learning my way around here. Sorry I hadn’t figured that out yet. lol Hope I got it right.

Back to point…

So, he should not only vote against the spending, but once the spending is already committed, he should just let whatever go wherever because that’s “consistent.” OK, then. That don’t fix the REAL problem now, does it?

Voting against the spending does, however, run consistent with what the REAL problem is. The spending itself.

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Rae,
It is not that earmarks make any difference, but when used as payola to supporters, it makes a huge difference. This is especially true for someone (like RP) who says he is doing one thing when actually using it for something else.

Coming from the likes of Mary Landrieu is one thing, coming from “Mr. No” is something else.

Kermit on February 13, 2011 at 1:14 PM

BSD,

Only block quote the pulled comments you get from others in any responses you make, not your whole comment.

catmman on February 13, 2011 at 1:17 PM

A. F’ing YES. I’ve read beyond the titles such as “For Free Trade” and also that at least Dow Chemical sold off its BRAND NEW maintenance dredging equipment (I was involved in that) when earmarks started coming in for the Feds to pay for dredging outside of the ship channel and alongside their docks. Same goes for ExxonMobil’s Baytown, TX refinery and BP’s Texas City Refinery. Then there was the earmark to a phony Al Sharpton backed non-profit to treat “veterans” with substance abuse disorders in a city with few of them and to be operated by a group which donated to his campaign.
B. They were part of some of his rallies, like that 10%er Adam Kokesh. And a few friends have witnessed those meetings in his DC congressional offices.
C. No proof but something that I’m working on investigating.

To say that everyone else does this is A. not exactly true and B. avoiding his lies about being anti-”corporatist”

He ain’t all that and a bag of chips likes he makes himself out to be.

Kermit on February 13, 2011 at 1:09 PM

A. Again, that money is ALREADY spent. Where it goes once it’s committed isn’t as serious as it being spent ALREADY. You know this is true, but continue with the nonsense.
B. So a few people show up at a rally, and that automatically means that it’s the entire representation of a candidate and everyone who would vote for him? Guess I’ll remember that the next time some birther or racist shows up at a rally for more “mainstream” Republicans then.
C. Good luck with that one. lol But, since you have no proof of this (which you openly admit), you shouldn’t say it, either.

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 1:17 PM

BSD,

Only block quote the pulled comments you get from others in any responses you make, not your whole comment.

catmman on February 13, 2011 at 1:17 PM

WOO HOO! I think I finally figured it out. lol

I’m not the most tech savvy guy here, Catmman. Gotta give me a break here. lol

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 1:19 PM

Rae on February 13, 2011 at 1:11 PM

The point isn’t the significance of the earmarks, the point is the earmarks and the so-called fiscal morality espoused.

You cannot backload spending bills you know are going to pass with earmarks, then make a big show of voting against the bill you know is going to pass and still benefit from the largesse. Its a morally indefensible position. It isn’t consistent. It is in fact hypocritical. Who’s being obtuse here? Not I.

Frankly, I don’t care if you like the guy or not. A persons preference in pols is like that of their favorite sports team. You’ll like who you like and I’ll like who I like.

What bothers me is the intellectual dishonesty. You accuse others of being obtuse and dupes yet can’t see past your own hyper partisan support of one man to notice you’re being exactly what you accuse others of being.

catmman on February 13, 2011 at 1:27 PM

Kermit on February 13, 2011 at 1:14 PM

He’s doing the job that he was elected to do! ALL spending should be earmarked.

There is far more hypocrisy in demanding a transparent and accountable Constitutional government and then banning earmarks, voting YAY! on the UnPatriot Act, spending trillions upon trillions in banksta bailouts, and calling for Assange’s head for publishing government secrets than RP’s measly earmarks.

Rae on February 13, 2011 at 1:32 PM

catmman on February 13, 2011 at 1:27 PM

Matthew 7:5.

Rae on February 13, 2011 at 1:33 PM

Okay, the thread has turned to a defense of Ron Paul the anti-spending earmarker?

You can’t have it both ways.

hawkdriver on February 13, 2011 at 1:39 PM

So, he should not only vote against the spending, but once the spending is already committed, he should just let whatever go wherever because that’s “consistent.” OK, then. That don’t fix the REAL problem now, does it?

Voting against the spending does, however, run consistent with what the REAL problem is. The spending itself.

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 1:19 PM

To be truly consistent, yes.

I’ll try an analogy: Let’s give heroin addicts methadone to get them off the smack. It’s just as addictive and doesn’t really address the problem of the underlying addiction, but at least we’re getting him some help.

If one is going to be the fiscal stalwart Herr Doktor claims to be (and as his supporters rabidly proclaim) then you must be the whole package – no money from spending bills which isn’t need for the basics. Period.

If you’re getting the money anyway through earmarks, what good is the vote against the overall bill, really? Its purely a political move, not anything of any real substance. Not taking any money would be the consistent, moral way to go – if one actually believed in what they were selling.

The money is already destined to be spent? So what? Again, if you actually believe we’re spending money on stuff we shouldn’t be, that spending is out of control, that we’re headed for a fiscal disaster then what is the right stance to take, the right action – not take any money.

If a people want something, they should fund it themselves. If Washington is simply giving them back their own money – in whatever fashion – then they shouldn’t have had that money to begin with. It should have stayed with the people. Taking earmarks simply perpetuates things. It doesn’t matter the size of the earmarks. Just because a cancer tumor may be small, you don’t ignore it – you attack it with everything you’ve got before it gets bigger and spreads.

catmman on February 13, 2011 at 1:41 PM

Young Americans for Freedom did the right thing.

Yephora on February 13, 2011 at 1:43 PM

Matthew 7:5.

Rae on February 13, 2011 at 1:33 PM

You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

That’s right, this applies to Ron Paul perfectly.

catmman on February 13, 2011 at 1:43 PM

blame on America for the unprovoked attacks of Sept. 11th.

What a surprise. More cluelessness on foreign policy blowback. I suppose this crowd also buys the BS that “they hate us for our freedoms.”

Also, waging perpetual nation-building wars has nothing to do with national security, nor is it in any way “conservative.”

YAF Laugh

Rae on February 13, 2011 at 1:49 PM

So the Ronulan position is that Confederate slavery and Hitler should have been left in place. The Stormfront attraction to him isn’t really surprising, given this, is it?

G M on February 13, 2011 at 1:49 PM

Young Americans for Freedom did the right thing.

Yephora on February 13, 2011 at 1:43 PM

‘They sure did. And they didn’t mince words as to why they did it.

hawkdriver on February 13, 2011 at 1:50 PM

How many of you guys are Spathi? Come on now, show of hands.

hawkdriver on February 13, 2011 at 1:51 PM

To be truly consistent, yes.

I’ll try an analogy: Let’s give heroin addicts methadone to get them off the smack. It’s just as addictive and doesn’t really address the problem of the underlying addiction, but at least we’re getting him some help.

If one is going to be the fiscal stalwart Herr Doktor claims to be (and as his supporters rabidly proclaim) then you must be the whole package – no money from spending bills which isn’t need for the basics. Period.

If you’re getting the money anyway through earmarks, what good is the vote against the overall bill, really? Its purely a political move, not anything of any real substance. Not taking any money would be the consistent, moral way to go – if one actually believed in what they were selling.

The money is already destined to be spent? So what? Again, if you actually believe we’re spending money on stuff we shouldn’t be, that spending is out of control, that we’re headed for a fiscal disaster then what is the right stance to take, the right action – not take any money.

If a people want something, they should fund it themselves. If Washington is simply giving them back their own money – in whatever fashion – then they shouldn’t have had that money to begin with. It should have stayed with the people. Taking earmarks simply perpetuates things. It doesn’t matter the size of the earmarks. Just because a cancer tumor may be small, you don’t ignore it – you attack it with everything you’ve got before it gets bigger and spreads.

catmman on February 13, 2011 at 1:41 PM

Let’s try another analogy…

Remember the episode of “South Park” when the doctor was diagnosing everyone with pink eye when they were turning into zombies? The zombies had one symptom of pink eye in their undead state, so that’s what the doctor said they had.

All of South Park is whipped into a frenzy trying to fight off pink eye, they’re ignoring the bigger problem, which is their friends and neighbors becoming zombies.

Earmarks are the pink eye. The spending itself is the zombies.

Are they a problem? Of course. Do I agree with him taking earmarks? No. But, we have far bigger problems to deal with than the one symptom of pink eye.

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 1:52 PM

Rae,

Crack open a book by jihadist thinkers like Sayyid Qutb, and you’ll find that indeed they do hate us for our freedoms. Just like they were enslaving Americans before we had much of any foreign policy.

G M on February 13, 2011 at 1:54 PM

catmman on February 13, 2011 at 1:43 PM

Not exactly. He voted NAY on the banksta bailouts, on the UnPatriot Act, and has never voted to annul huge chunks of the Bill of Rights, unlike so many other Republicans.

Rae on February 13, 2011 at 1:54 PM

What a surprise. More cluelessness on foreign policy blowback. I suppose this crowd also buys the BS that “they hate us for our freedoms.”

Also, waging perpetual nation-building wars has nothing to do with national security, nor is it in any way “conservative.”

YAF Laugh

Rae on February 13, 2011 at 1:49 PM

No kidding, Rae. Never mind the foolishness we show when we think we can mold other nations into what we want with this nation-building nonsense, the cost itself is beyond what we can afford.

But, I guess being conservative means that we just let government have a blank check, so long as the spending is on something that’s approved of.

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 1:55 PM

Okay, the thread has turned to a defense of Ron Paul the anti-spending earmarker?

You can’t have it both ways.

hawkdriver on February 13, 2011 at 1:39 PM

The logic goes something like this:

Ron Paul votes against worthless resolutions despite the fact they’ll pass regardless, because he’s a man of principle who is against frivolous resolutions.

Ron Paul votes against earmarks despite the fact that the money will be spend regardless, because he’s a man of principle who is against frivolous spending.

Oh wait…a little problem with that second statement. *cough*

MadisonConservative on February 13, 2011 at 1:56 PM

YAF Laugh

Rae on February 13, 2011 at 1:49 PM

From the folks that many assume garnered their organizations name based on a premise of Lincoln’s sexuality.

I take then so serious.

hawkdriver on February 13, 2011 at 1:58 PM

Rae,

Crack open a book by jihadist thinkers like Sayyid Qutb, and you’ll find that indeed they do hate us for our freedoms. Just like they were enslaving Americans before we had much of any foreign policy.

G M on February 13, 2011 at 1:54 PM

I don’t doubt that some of them do hate us for our freedom. I don’t doubt that others hate us for our foreign policy. I don’t doubt that some of them hate us just because they can, but can’t even tell you why.

So what? Haters gonna hate. If/when they attack, respond. If they’re just mouthing off, why give them the satisfaction of attention?

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 1:58 PM

Oh yeah, the nation-building in Japan and Germany was like a total failure, right?

G M on February 13, 2011 at 1:58 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7