Thoughts on CPAC

| February 22, 2010 | 17 Comments

If you missed CPAC in DC last weekend, here’s a photo essay from John Hawkins at Right Wing News. I’ve never been to CPAC, but I’ve always gotten updates from my buddy Skye who has been the last three years running.

But I guess the big news this year was Ron Paul winning the straw poll. Actually, that’s no surprise – since Paul was one of 11 candidates in the poll. What the media isn’t saying is that 69% of the 2000 voters in the straw poll voted against Ron Paul. Judging by the jeers when the winner of the poll was announced, Paul would run right of town if he were the nominee.

Yeah, yeah, I agree with Ron Paul on much of his domestic policy, but he’s a nutbag on foreign policy. Since the media has been successful on focusing on domestic policy the last several months, in conjunction with the White House, it’s no wonder that a large number of Conservatives would ignore Paul’s foreign policy and vote for his domestic policy.

And did I mention that Ron Paul supports IVAW’s Adam Kokesh for Congress in New Mexico?

I guess if you’re voting and it’s not going to count, you might as well vote for Paul – especially if your intention is to just rock the conservatives a bit and get them focused on domestic policy. But I think most conservatives, who aren’t single issue voters, wouldn’t vote for Paul in a primary. What did he pull in the 2008 race? Less than 1% of voters, despite the squirrely Paulian’s claim that he pulled more but the media wouldn’t report it.

Speaking of Skye, it looks like she busted Medea Benjamin and Tyge Barry trying to interupt Glen Beck’s speech at CPAC. Also posted at Flopping Aces.

Category: Bloggers, Politics, Ron Paul

Loading Facebook Comments ...

Comments (17)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Ben says:

    I was shocked at Paul’s poll numbers as well. Not that a CPAC straw poll two years prior to election means much of anything, but…I don’t want to minimize it either.

    I went to CPAC 2007. The straw poll then was a lot closer. Romney 21%, Giuliani 17%, Brownback 14%, Gingrich 14%, McCain 12%. The point is that these numbers were a lot closer. There was no clear winner. This year, it seemed that decisive winner was Ron Paul.

    I’d wouldn’t vote for Ron Paul if you paid me, but I don’t see too many dazzling jewels out there in the Republican Party to choose from.

    2012 is a very winnable year for Republicans, but we NEED candidates! We need confident people with brains who can articulate ideas that are frequently mocked on the likes of the Daily Show and Family Guy.

  2. OldTrooper says:

    Isn’t Tyge Barry the drama queen that laid himself out as though he was roughed up by Isreali security a while back? IIRC there was several women screaming as though they were being tortured, but when you watch the video, they were doing it for dramatic effect as they weren’t even being touched. Then he lays down like he’s doing Summer theater and Bennie kneeling at his side, etc.

    Well, with all that, I would have been surprised if Bennie hadn’t shown up.

    As for the Paulians……meh.

  3. NHSparky says:

    It’s not Paulians–it’s Paulistinians, or Paulbots.

  4. Claymore says:

    I thought they were Ronulans.

  5. Trish aka AFbrat says:

    NHSparky: spoken like a true Zilla. ;-D

    That straw poll should not be taken seriously… a bunch of kids with nothing better to do than stack the deck for Dr. Paul. Didn’t he, BTW, end up taking stimulus money?

  6. dutch508 says:

    ****ing ronulans. Not sure who I’d shoot first, them or the Reds.

  7. Marine 83 says:

    “****ing ronulans. Not sure who I’d shoot first, them or the Reds.” I’d have to go with the reds, but lets face it the paulians are a bunch of communist f@#ks anyway so no need to be real choosy.

  8. Debra says:

    Dutch508 and Marine83, why do you post violent language like that on the internet which seems to insinuate communication of a threat? Are you deliberately trying to attract the attention of Homeland Security or the FBI by painting yourselves as potential domestic terrorists? I doubt that either one of you are really that bad…though maybe you would benefit from a yoga class, meditation, or something to calm your nerves down.

  9. Skye says:

    Jonn,

    Thanks for posting a link to the code pink video. A blogger following the event described me as going ‘Bauer’ on Code Pink.

    I just laughed :)

  10. justplainjason_110 says:

    I have a couple things to say…
    1) Ron Paul is very smart when he is talking about certain things, but if it has anything to do with foreign policy… I also hear he is pretty good at birthing babies.
    2) I hope that I am not the only one that wanted to choke the living shit out of the guy (term used loosely) who was with the code pink bitch.
    3) It didn’t seem that they liked their tactics being used against them.
    4) Deb more than likely we are all on some homeland security list.

  11. Debra says:

    Well, justplainjason_101, my responses to your comments…
    1) Men don’t birth babies; mothers do. :-)
    2) Personally, I’ve never had any desire to choke anyone. I’m still suffering personal trauma from getting choked out with a nightstick during MP training back in 1976 at Ft. McClellan, AL.
    3) Honestly, I thought the whole was frigging hilarious…
    4) LOL, that’s probably true. Well, don’t worry; I got everything covered!

  12. Debra says:

    On my #3, I meant “whole thing” (I left out the word thing…we need an edit button here!)

  13. Sean says:

    The thing that bums me out is that Bob Barr was one of the few folks willing to speak to the crowd at CPAC as if they were adults, with not talking points and speak honestly about reality, and he got booed. People just wanted to hear more of Glenn Beck shuck and jive and talk about how Obama=Satan I guess…

  14. NHSparky says:

    Gee Sean, could it have anything to do with the fact Barr is a political whore of the first order who’ll flop whichever way the wind blows? If he had any sort of positive purpose, it sure would have been apparent in the 2008, but judging by the votes he drew in, over 99.6 percent of the population said no way in hell. Says a lot when a complete nutbag like Cynthia McKinney gets more votes than you do.

  15. Marine 83 says:

    Oh Deb, did we insult your little tin plated god? Your co-religionists the paulanistas are anti military, troother scum who have allinged themselves with various leftist causes. As to bringing myself to the attention of Homeland Security all I’ve got to say is whatever. The big bad HS team is your boogyman, not mine.

  16. dutch508 says:

    I am already being watched by the governement as I am a combat veteran, own guns, vote Republican and have been to a tea party event. You think my file is suddenly going to tip the scale into a room clearing BATF stack team because I think ronulans should be shot on site?

    dumbass.

  17. Debra says:

    Well… best I can figure, Dutch508, I think a case could possibly be made that your first statement, “ ****ing ronulans. Not sure who I’d shoot first, them or the Reds,” arguably meets the elements of proof for the offense of Communicating a Threat under Article 134 of the UCMJ. Remember Marc Hall’s rap song led to him being charged with communicating a threat and threatening acts of violence. The military feels that his threats need to be taken seriously, particularly in the wake of the Ft. Hood shootings. Personally, I agree with that. Do you?

    I’m no lawyer, of course, but your second statement, which seems somewhat revised in its tone, “You think my file is suddenly going to tip the scale into a room clearing BATF stack team because I think ronulans should be shot on site?” does not really strike me much as meeting the first element of proof for the offense of Communicating a Threat, which is, “That the accused communicated certain language expressing a present determination or intent to wrongfully injure the person, property, or reputation of another person, presently or in the future.” The reason I don’t really think that your second statement meets that element of proof is because in that statement, you are only referring to what you think, not what you would do.

    On the other hand, the first element of proof also requires that the language express a “present determination or intent,” so I’m not completely sure if a person saying that he “would” do something actually means that it is in the “present.” What are your thoughts on that?

    Well, it’s an interesting question. Probably make for a good discussion in a college class on Criminal Law. Or in a court room.

    http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl134-53.htm

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *