SRLC Straw Poll Results: Paul & Romney Tie for First with 24%

SRLC Straw Poll Results: Paul & Romney Tie for First with 24%

Ron Paul 24% (this matters)
Mitt Romney 24% (this doesn't matter)
Sarah Palin 18% (this doesn't matter)
Newt Gingrich 18% (etc.)
Mike Huckabee 4%
Tim Pawlenty 3%
Mike Pence 3%
Rick Santorum 2%
Gary Johnson 1%

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/131382

:hat

Ron Paul at the SRLC

WATCH COMPLETE VIDEO

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...ves/55544.html

Why do the others not matter?

LOL @ these republican chumps laughing Ron Paul off the stage in 08, and now having to play nice seeing as how he is owning their tea party movement they keep trying to nuthug.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Why do the others not matter?

---

Because we said so (sarcasm).

Paul's son is running for Senate in KY to replace Bunning.

This could be a model for the teabaggers splitting the right-wing/red-state/bubba/dumbfuck/Repug vote and ending up with a candidate that causes the losing right wingers to abstain from voting for, allowing the Dem to take the seat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

Paul's son is running for Senate in KY to replace Bunning.

This could be a model for the teabaggers splitting the right-wing/red-state/bubba/dumbfuck/Repug vote and ending up with a candidate that causes the losing right wingers to abstain from voting for, allowing the Dem to take the seat.

---

Rand leads the democrat by over 10% in the polls.

Ron Paul: Twenty top applause lines at SRLC -- Video

Get rid of the deficit.

I don't like a strong executive branch, I want a strong congress that exerts its prerogatives.

If we didn't do anything else but elect individuals who you could trust, that would always obey the constitution, we would get out of this mess in no time.

Corporations run the country. We see that in the financial institution, we see it in the military industrial complex, and now we see it in the medical industrial complex.

There is going to be one piece of legislation I'm going to introduce. It will probably be one page long. And it will be to remove the mandate that you have to participate if you don't want to.

We only have two problems in Washington with the spending - Conservatives and Liberals.

All empires end for financial reasons and that is what the markets are telling us today.

I would say if you want to go to war; only congress can declare the war. Declare the war, know who the enemy is, go fight it and win it and get out of there.

We can do better with peace than with war.

Everybody has a right to life and liberty.

When we talk about protection for all life, I mean the protection of all life not just life designated by liberals. I believe premature, preborn life is just as valuable and should be protected.

We must protect personal choices. We don't need the government to tell us whether or not you are allowed to drink raw milk or not. Those decisions should be made by the individual and not by the nanny state.

Dangerous things for our children should be handled by their parents.

You can't pick and choose, you must cut spending every place and get back to a balanced budget.

The number one regulation is to regulate the Federal Reserve system.

Medicare and Medicaid are bankrupt; you can't save Medicare and Medicaid by creating another trillion dollar program.

The whole way has to be limited government....If you want the young people of this country, you better look at these viewpoints.

There's a revolution on the college campuses right now and they are not looking for hand outs. They are looking for freedom so they can get a job and take care of themselves.

Socialism fails; it might make you equal but you are all going to be equally poor.

The miracle for the freedom movement is the internet.

http://www.examiner.com/x-35532-Dall...t-SRLC---Video

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EmptyMan

LOL @ these republican chumps laughing Ron Paul off the stage in 08, and now having to play nice seeing as how he is owning their tea party movement they keep trying to nuthug.

---

Ron Paul has nothing to do with the Tea Baggers. That was a bullshit "grassroots" movement started by corporations to co-op independents and libertarians to vote republican.

problem is the actual Tea Baggers don't know it.............and ALOT of them love Ron Paul........which is cool cuz Ron is the shit and a real conservative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PublicOption

Ron Paul has nothing to do with the Tea Baggers. That was a bullshit "grassroots" movement started by corporations to co-op independents and libertarians to vote republican.

problem is the actual Tea Baggers don't know it.............and ALOT of them love Ron Paul........which is cool cuz Ron is the shit and a real conservative.

---

Ron Paul isn't "conservative", he is a libertarian. And the reason he won't ever get the RNC's support or win country-wide is that he comes across sounding supremely naive in debates, esp on issues related to foreign policy.

But I love that he's sucking away votes from the Republicans, just like the Tea Baggers and the other right wing nutjobs are doing.

Also, Mitt Romney will never win because a) he's Mormon and most Americans think Mormons are weird cult members and b) he's flipflopped on more than pancakes in a 24 hour diner.

Sarah Palin is the right's rock star, but consistently polls poorly against Dems except with the solid 30% who would vote for a stick in the mud if they ran it against a Dem.

The Republicans still have not found their candidate who could actually win against Obama. We'll see if they do.

What? Ron Paul understands foreign policy better than anyone, just read his books and learn how he predicted world events 30 years ago.

...and RON PAUL is a conservative.....you my friend have to read the definition of conservatism. He is not a NEOCON and that is what you are referring to.

ol ron yeah he big in van vleck texas, nuts live there

blessing texas, gods country

A Mormon from MA that implemented a socialist health plan?

Not a chance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

A Mormon from MA that implemented a socialist health plan?

Not a chance.

---

Slow down there, you mean to tell us that the person who implemented the MA health care plan that the Republicans are saying has bankrupted MA and is a model for how the rest of the country will end up...was actually a Republican? :wow

Quote:

---

Ron Paul has nothing to do with the Tea Baggers. That was a bullshit "grassroots" movement started by corporations to co-op independents and libertarians to vote republican.

---

Wrong. This is simply an anti-teabaggin' talking point.

ron paul is as big an earmark spender as there is:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4935311.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rjv

ron paul is as big an earmark spender as there is:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4935311.html

---

In Paul's defense, he's never said he's against earmarks. His stated position is that he believes that whatever dollars the federal government taxes away from his district he will try to get returned to his district. Make your own judgements as to his sincerity, but there it is.

Plus I think Paul should get a little slack with regards to earmarks in this past session seeing as how his district had been hit by Hurricane Ike.

Paul actually got in trouble in his district because people were believing he wasnt earmarking. his job is to represent his district, and when everyone wants him to ask the fed for money, it's his sworn job to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

In Paul's defense, he's never said he's against earmarks. His stated position is that he believes that whatever dollars the federal government taxes away from his district he will try to get returned to his district. Make your own judgements as to his sincerity, but there it is.

Plus I think Paul should get a little slack with regards to earmarks in this past session seeing as how his district had been hit by Hurricane Ike.

---

the question becomes what is an "essential government function". if he was ever president he will find out quickly that whether he likes it or not, he better make the military priority number one.

ike i understand but old movie theaters and the marketing of wild shrimp i do not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rjv

the question becomes what is an "essential government function". if he was ever president he will find out quickly that whether he likes it or not, he better make the military priority number one.

ike i understand but old movie theaters and the marketing of wild shrimp i do not.

---

Not making the military his #1 priority is why he's got no shot at ever becoming president.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Not making the military his #1 priority is why he's got no shot at ever becoming president.

---

very true.

yaeh we need more military

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h1...7112840rm5.gif
http://www.physics.unc.edu/~cecil/MilitarySpending.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greyforest

yaeh we need more military

---

Apparently we do, as evidenced by the suggestion earlier in this thread that Ron Paul comes across as naive for suggesting otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greyforest

yaeh we need more military

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h1...7112840rm5.gif
http://www.physics.unc.edu/~cecil/MilitarySpending.jpg

---

of course we don't but the point is that paul would not have any choice as president when it comes to this matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greyforest

yaeh we need more military

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h1...7112840rm5.gif
http://www.physics.unc.edu/~cecil/MilitarySpending.jpg

---

Are you just jealous that your favorite country has less toys than the USA?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Are you just jealous that your favorite country has less toys than the USA?

---

I just want to make sure I understand that right, is that total number and size of aircraft carriers per country? If so, I am very, very surprised that Russia only has one. Also, I know for a fact that the brazilian one is one of ours. I read the article about 5 years ago where we sold them one of ours that we were decommissioning.

The Difficulty of Being an Unprincipled Scold

Posted on April 12th, 2010 by Daniel Larison

Masscare may be to Romney in 2012 what abortion was in 2008—an issue where a critical mass of conservatives don’t quite buy his explanations (and I say this as someone who likes and respects Romney and wishes him well). The best thing for Romney to say, I think, is that he flat-out made a mistake, that he tried an idea that ran off the rails. It would also have the advantage of being true. But he can’t bring himself to go there yet. ~Rich Lowry

Jim Antle ably points out the problems with this, but I would add two other observations. Whatever appeal Romney has is built around his reputation for competence and policy wonkery. When it is a subject he has actually bothered to learn something out (i.e., not foreign policy), he can speak very knowledgeably and in great detail. Given that reputation, how could the competent, wonkish executive sign off on a piece of legislation that he should have known would create a fiscal nightmare for the state in a few years’ time? There is another point related to this. Romney does not have much experience in political office, and so has leaned heavily on his record in the private sector to supplement his short time in government. His signature achievement does not include any of the containment or reduction in costs that was typical of Romney’s work for Bain. If MassCare is the result of bringing Romney’s business acumen to government, what exactly would be the benefit of his election as President?



When Romney is being “himself,” we are told, he is the problem-solving pragmatist, but all that he really did in Massachusetts was to exacerbate the problem of health care costs and now he desperately hides behind federalist arguments to excuse his remarkably poor judgment. Indeed, the federalist argument for state-by-state health care legislation requires that the person making it point to Massachusetts as an example of a terrible, failed experiment. If we want to liken states to laboratories, Romney set his lab on fire on the way out the door. That hasn’t stopped him from proudly pointing to the burning structure he left behind as evidence of his effectiveness as an executive and a reason why he should be entrusted with even greater power.



One advantage that Romney’s perpetual position-switching used to give him was that it created the impression that Romney was very pliable and would not persist stubbornly in a position out of deep-seated conviction or arrogance. The argument went something like this: however untrustworthy Romney seemed, and no matter how much he would pander to every audience to win votes, he would never be as willfully blind to reality as Bush was. Since the beginning of the health care debate, Romney has started to combine the worst traits of his previous presidential campaign and that stubborn obliviousness that defined Bush: he cannot let go of the Massachusetts health care bill, he cannot really acknowledge the mistakes that he helped to make, and yet he wants to make himself the standard-bearer of the opposition to the very same kind of thing he supported just a few years ago and still will not repudiate.



This is related to what distinguished Romney from other panderers and opportunists. All politicians tell us what they think we want to hear, and many of them will engage in the most absurd contortionism to run away from previous positions that are no longer popular or useful, but very few of them will do all of that and then claim to be some high-minded, principled, newly-converted opponent of all the things that they endorsed yesterday. There is a passage in Game Change about Romney’s presidential campaign that sums this up nicely:

Unlike Giuliani, Romney had no reticence about slashing at his rivals. But the perception of him as a man without convictions made him a less-than-effective delivery system for policy contrasts. The combination of the vitriol of his attacks and his apparent corelessness explained the antipathy the other candidates had toward him. (p.294)

So Romney now insists that the Massachusetts legislation is working when it isn’t, and that he never made an error in judgment when he did, and he will probably then start denouncing anyone on his side who does not want to make repeal the heart of the Republican platform. What is important to remember here is that the policy issue could be almost anything. It need not be health care. Romney would still engage in the same holier-than-thou latecomer routine that he has been practicing for at least five years.

Obama doesn't have many contenders for the EO. Paul is the best I can identify with, but he'll be looking to take votes away from Republicans (Obamabots are already programmed to vote a certain way). What happens on Capitol Hill will be much more interesting.

Regardless of his adequacy for the post, Romney simply doesn't have the charisma to win a presidential election.

As for Paul, I respect him and wish him the best, but expect his platform is too revolutionary to curry corporate investment or widespread public support outside of the Libertarian and Goldwater Republicans, of which there are seemingly about 5 left, alas.

The GOP needs to do better if they hope to make a respectable showing, but I don't really know where they'll look unless Chuck Hagel decides to run. The rest of the most public GOPpers are just too entrenched in vestigial Bush-era associations.

The talking heads on Fox News can barely get out a coherent sentence when discussing Ron Paul. It is pretty amusing when the topic changes to him and you get bombarded with stuttering and uh's all of a sudden.

Funny how being a constitutionalist makes you too radical to run the country. That's the natural progression of any civilization though I guess. Dude doesn't have a chance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EmptyMan

Funny how being a constitutionalist makes you too radical to run the country. That's the natural progression of any civilization though I guess. Dude doesn't have a chance.

---

What's heartbreaking to me is that being a small government constitutionalist makes RP too radical to lead the party that says it believes in small government and the constitution.

So Paul got beat by a guy who didn't even show up to speak.

:tu

True.

That's not to the credit of the GOP, IMHO. They pick a pretty plastic face over some guy who really has principles, every time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supergirl

Ron Paul isn't "conservative", he is a libertarian. And the reason he won't ever get the RNC's support or win country-wide is that he comes across sounding supremely naive in debates, esp on issues related to foreign policy.

---

I voted for the real antiwar candidate. Who did you vote for?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

That's not to the credit of the GOP, IMHO. They pick a pretty plastic face over some guy who really has principles, every time.

---

That strategy wins elections. Image is everything. It's not just a GOP phenomenon either. If Obama was 50 pounds overweight and spoke with a lisp he doesn't beat Hillary.

I wish Ron Paul would lay off on some of his arguments, so as to sound more moderate and palatable to the voting public. I actually like him more than 95% of the other reps with an R by their name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

I wish Ron Paul would lay off on some of his arguments, so as to sound more moderate and palatable to the voting public. I actually like him more than 95% of the other reps with an R by their name.

---

I think you're right that there are a lot of people who get scared away from Ron Paul when he starts using words like "abolish" when talking about the Fed and the income tax. The word "abolish" just sounds radical and that scares people. There's no doubt in my mind that if he would soften his message and say something along the lines of "reducing the Fed's authority" that he'd be more popular.

Of course the fact that Paul is willing to put his beliefs ahead of his popularity is what I like most about the guy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

I think you're right that there are a lot of people who get scared away from Ron Paul when he starts using words like "abolish" when talking about the Fed and the income tax. The word "abolish" just sounds radical and that scares people. There's no doubt in my mind that if he would soften his message and say something along the lines of "reducing the Fed's authority" that he'd be more popular.

Of course the fact that Paul is willing to put his beliefs ahead of his popularity is what I like most about the guy.

---

I think the biggest indicator of this is his insistence on the gold standard. I don't know for sure whether that would fix our problems. But I can tell you that it doesn't great in the public eye... "Gold standard" isn't exactly a crowd-pleaser.

I will say he's one of my more-liked politicians, along with Feingold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

I think you're right that there are a lot of people who get scared away from Ron Paul when he starts using words like "abolish" when talking about the Fed and the income tax. The word "abolish" just sounds radical and that scares people. There's no doubt in my mind that if he would soften his message and say something along the lines of "reducing the Fed's authority" that he'd be more popular.

Of course the fact that Paul is willing to put his beliefs ahead of his popularity is what I like most about the guy.

---

i like paul as well in that regard but one certain obama once seemed like far less the hawk in foreign policy he actually is. the oval office has this power over people. not that obama metamorphosized all that much....

I know. Polls. Meaningless, etc, etc........ Still, I found this interesting.

Rasmussen: Obama 42% Paul 41%