CPAC: Consevatives Vote for Ron Paul

Remove all ads!

You have to feel for conservatives - no one listens to them. They held an "unoffical" straw poll for whom they would like for prez, and Ron Paul came out on top. I've been listening to the pundits on the "news" networks blabber all day about the lead-in to this story, and if it would be "Palin (playing Patty politician) or Romney (the East Coast elistist, who despises East Coast elitists)," and I had not even heard the name "Ron Paul" mentioned - once. So who won? Ron Paul.

But did that stop them. Why no. They are now ranting about Cheney and Newt - Two has-beens who barely registered on the voting scale. Why? Again, because neither of them are really conservatives in the real sense of the word. Keep in mind that Cheney was the VP who declared - in the midst of the GWB government expanding and spending extravaganza - that "deficits did not matter."

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_52/b3914021_mz007.htm

Ha! So who gets the spotlight, despite the conservative call for real conservative policy? Cheney of course, who made a surprise visit to the conservative gathering. IMO, Ron Paul is a good guy. As a local, this guy has been fighting the real conservative cause for so many years and has been largely ignored, because he actually believes the rhetoric: Less government debt and smaller government across the board and he is for civil, individual rights. In fact, the "liberal" media gave him a platform when the MS media refused. Nevertheless, he is ignored by the corporate media, that gains from all the donation money that flows to it from the candidates in every cycle. Even "comrade" Rachel Maddow invited Ron Paul to speak on her "communist/socialist program" after he was rebuffed by his own party leadership (Maddow's program has been described as "Provda" by leading pundit, Glenn Beck).

Why do liberals, like Rachel, and Jon Stewart, and I, respect and like a true conservative like Ron Paul? Because despite what the media and some partisan hacks (like Karl Rove) would want eveyone to believe, there really is room for civil and reasoned debate in American politics; it's just that it is buried under the weight of those who gain from making conservatives and liberals appear to despise one another, which is a real shame. If Palin had won, there would be no end to the hype and glitz and how, according to her, "the REAL America won."

But my real point in this thread is to give Ron Paul a big "congrats." Because he probably won't get it anywhere else, it seems. Depite the disagreements I have with him, he is a good, thoughtful and honest guy, who would be an OK prez. I'm glad he won, even if it won't mean much in the scheme of things.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35498037/ns/politics/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/20/ron-paul-wins-presidential-straw-poll-cpac/

http://www.foxnews.com/

Note that Ron Paul only gets a brief mention - Glenn Beck gets the "serious coverage." Did Ron Paul actually SAY anything at CPAC? You bet, if I know Paul. But where are his comments at CPAC reported by FOX or MSNBC?

 

Chandros, I read where Ron Paul isn't exactly popular at the Tea Party convention. I have to admit that when I read the headline, I was a bit surprised. But when I read the article, apparently his relative unpopularity is due to the fact that people in his House district believe that he's spent too much time running for Prez and not enough doing his job, i.e. servicing his constituents, which I s'pose is a good enough reason to be ticked at your House rep.

Anyways, regardless of that, I could never vote for Ron Paul. He's not a conservative. He's a libertarian, and sometimes a "big L" Libertarian, who only seems to run as a Republican cuz he couldn't win his House seat running as a Libertarian. I suppose I could say that that makes him a "RINO", though that'd make him a seriously strange sort of RINO.



I like Romney ... sort of. I've heard him in local radio interviews and he sounds nice enough. But I have serious questions about his electability due to his Morman roots. I personally don't give a bleep about him being a Morman, but an awful lot of southern religious conservatives do.... And while it may seem like "enabling" their bigotry, if I don't think that Romney would be able to win over a major core block of GOP voters in a region that's critical to GOP general election success, I won't be able to give him my vote in the primaries.

I also somewhat question Romney's conservative credentials. He had to "go along to get along" a lot as governor of Mass., and that's understandable if you want to be a GOP gov. in Mass. But it also means that I haven't seen any record of conservatism to hang my hat on, so to speak.

So, Romney can be what seems like a nice guy, and have a good record in the private sector, but his record as a politician leaves something to be desired for me.

 

He isn't a typical Republican, but since so many Republicans are no longer "conservatives," that really doesn't matter. Barry Goldwater would no longer fit very well in the modern Republican Party either, and in fact, in his last years, commented to Bob Dole that he considered them both to be "like liberals within the party."

 

I found the segment with Bob Barr remarkable. Never mind that frivolous sleaze ball of a moderator, I think Barr's statement is absolutely correct. That he got flak for what he said only shows how far out the Reps are on the subjects he touched.

​

 

Crucis - You have me thinking about that statement, because I've always thought of him as a Libertarian/conservative. And being a local politician, he is always described that way by most everyone in these parts. And while a lot of Libertarians are not conservatives, I've always counted Paul as being one the exceptions. But you are right, overall he is not really conservative. He is a "fiscal conservative," there's no doubt about that (more so than even most Republicans), but on most other issues he's pretty much a straight-line Libertarian. So I guess you are right.

So that changes the premise of my thread a bit: CPAC actually voted for a Libertarian and not a "real" conservative as I had suggested. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

Thanks, I think, Chandos.

I wasn't really trashing RP. But in a odd sense, he is a RINO because I believe that he's much more of a Libertarian than a Republican, but only runs under the GOP banner so that he has a chance to actually win.

I won't disagree that he's fiscally conservative. But he's certainly not conservative on other issues that are important to conservatives.

Also, I don't know enough about the CPAC convention. That is, I don't know if it's a by-invitation-only event, or an open event. And if it's the latter, isn't it possible that the convention was a bit packed with Paul "true believers"?

 

As for CPAC ... from the website of the American Conservative Union it appears that attendees simply needed to register online, I don't know whether that involved a registration fee. And then, they let Rachel Maddow in and roam the premises. She would have not been allowed at an invitation-only event.

As for Ron Paul: He has a well connected grass roots network of enthusiastic and activist followers. It is very likely that they simply spread the word and came en masse.

 

I'd assume that Maddow could get in with a press pass. And I didn't mean to imply that an "invitation only" event would be completely closed... just that the delegates would be from some list. Regardless, this sounds like a rather more open event...

Exactly... and since this event appears to have been an open one, they could just show up. Frankly, I'm not sure what it proves. It's not like winning some CPAC straw poll is going to mean much next time around.

 

I think a libertarian resurgence would be one of the best things that could happen for the republican party. Social conservatives, quite frankly, are seen to have been on the wrong side of every civil rights debate we've had over the last 100 years. This isn't likely to change any time soon, so I think republicans would be wise to return to their small government, fiscally conservative roots and leave the civil rights issues in the courts where they belong.

 

What an obnoxiously elitist anti-constitutional point of view! Let unelected elitists who are answerable to no one make social policy rather than The People.

Mind you, I'm not saying that all such issues should simply be subject to the "tyranny of the majority", but there's a constitutional amendment process that is more than capable of weeding out questionable things or issues that do not have sufficiently wide support. It is disgusting that a tiny handful of elitists have the power to force these decisions on the vast majority of people. This was most certainly NOT what the Founders envisioned!

 

No, that isn't what I suggested at all. I suggested that we let constitutional law experts appointed by the people but immune to political whimsy decide on matters of constitutional law. Judges need to make legal decisions based on the constitution and legal precedent, not on upcoming elections.

Our founders rightly understood that being subjected to the whims of the electorate would adversely affect the objectivity of the judiciary, so they rightly decided that judges should be appointed by the people through their elected representatives, removable only in cases of "bad behaviour" through a formal impeachment process. As a result, our federal judges are free to make unpopular decisions, serving as a check against the "tyranny of the majority" so rightly feared by many of our founders, without fear of reprisal from an angry electorate.

 

A libertarian is not a republican, but that does not mean they are not a conservative. IMO Libertarian is more conservative than Republican is these days, with most republicans being in bed with oil and other businesses, etc.

Ron Paul is my hero. I voted for him last election, and I'd definitely do it again.

 

For someone holding the constitution so high you have remarkable little faith in the legal system that it provides.

So federal judges are unanswerable to anyone? First, I doubt that is true. Second, apparently the founders liked the idea of an independent judiciary. What's wrong with it, where did they err? Does America need political control of the courts? And federal judges are elitist? Why? Because they studied law? Because they make rulings you don't like? Please elaborate.

 

I think you're getting into a sticky topic here. Ron Paul supports ear-marking, which isn't the devil everyone makes it out as (or, rather, doesn't need to be), but that's a big shot against his credentials as a "fiscal conservative". The other confusion is that, even aside from fiscal/social conservatism, conservatism isn't a political party, while th Libertarian movement is. This means, of course, that you can be both at the same time. I think many Libertarians are, to some degree or another. Unfortunately, the modern political pundits have taken the position that the Liberal Democratic Invasion is Communist Satan himself and can't be comprimised with, reasoned with, talked to, listened to, or, in some extremes, even sat in the same room with, without being corrupted by. This is bad, and stupid, and just about everything wrong with politics that can go wrong. There was a time (gee, it feels like a long time ago now), when Republicans and Democrats could talk together, work together, and come up with comprimises. We got some good legislation out of that. Some bad, too, but that's the nature of a democracy. I sincerely hope that those sane conservatives left in the Republican Party will either bail ship for the Libertarians (I think we could sit well there, though we may have issue with a few of the more idealistic points) or threaten to enough to knock the Republican leadership back to sense.

That being said, I don't think Ron Paul is a good investment for the long term. First off, he's pretty old, and that's never a good thing for a Presidential candidate. Secondly, he has too much history (a side effect of being old) to avoid a dung-storm in the political arena if he gets serious backing. Lastly, I think a few of his stances would be a bit problematic for most conservatives, Libertarian or Republican. Maybe if he appointed a successor or had a significant protegee or something.

Actually, Ragusa, I think you're wrong on all points here. First off, the Supreme Court (what I assume Crucis is referring to) is next-to unanserable to anyone. Congress can a justice through impeachment, just like the Pres, but that's about it. Of course, that means they're immune to many of the political pressures, but not to political ideology. Secondly, the whole idea of the Balance of Powers was to prevent anything from being truely independent, including the Judiciary. Between being appointed by the Pres, confirmed by the Senate, subject to impeachment by Congress, and restriced by the Constitution (and thus any amendments that may be passed by Congress), they're far from independent.

To put it simply, the moral issues of social conservatism aren't just a legal issue, but also a political one. Amendments to the Constitution are political more than legal (at least the process of enacting them is) and who each Prez appoints can make a massive change in the Court, especially over the years. This is what the Founding Fathers invisioned when they set it up, and while it's been taken to a ridiculous extreme of late, it is how it should remain. We just need better leaders.

 

NOG, you really need to read things more carefully.

That's the entire point. The founders intended for justices to be removable only through a formal impeachment process. As intended, if a justice commits serious professional or personal misconduct, he can be removed. Also as intended, removing him just because he makes an unpopular ruling is next to impossible. I'd hardly classify this as the judiciary being "next to unanswerable" to the legislature.

You contradict your first point, that the Supreme Court is "next-to unanserable to anyone", right here. What are you getting trying to say? Frankly, you seem confused.

Here you are arguing with a point no one has made. Ragusa has never suggested that there is something wrong with the way that our justices are appointed. In fact, he appears to be suggesting quite the opposite. Perhaps you failed to recognize which of his questions were rhetorical? That series of questions was Ragusa's way of asking Crucis to elaborate on why exactly it is "elitist" and "anti-constitutional" to suggest that appointed constitutional law experts (AKA judges) should be the people making rulings on constitutional law.

 

How is the topic sticky? The topic is that Ron Paul won a straw poll that no one expected him to, rather than the media darlings, Palin and Romney. And of course, after the big media build-up over the poll (which Crucis points out is really meaningless anyway), they continued to ignore him and go on about Cheney and Beck.

Unless you mean this:

He is very critical of the Iraq War and the concept of "nation building," particularly in the ME.

Here is more info on Ron Paul:

http://www.house.gov/paul/

Those are very Libertarian views, again as Crucis brought up, and not really "conservative" in the modern sense of the term (some of them MAY overlap into both liberal and/or conservative ideology). Since Crucis is the conservative I'll let him define "Conservative." Also, I'm a liberal/progressive, and I'm sure that it will cause some dispute if I define it. There is nothing worse than the opposition, telling the opposition what it stands for, at least in my opinon. So I won't go there, atm.

Are you saying he's not really a "fiscal conservative" compared to many other Republicans? Where does he rate on the "fiscal conservative scale in your opionion? You are really too vague on this point.

I think that point has already been made, so I'm not sure where the confusion is. Although there is a "Conservative Party." Is that what you mean?

This is from the thread you quoted:

Since no one (mostly the media) really brought up the Conservative Party, I felt no need to bring it into the topic. So we were only speaking of conservatives in a general meaning of the term, as ideology, rather than as a the actual political party.

 

Ron Paul will never be able to shake the image that he is a crackpot, a racist, and an anti-semite. I'm not convinced that any or all three are true, but as long as he has that baggage anybody who votes for him in a national election is wasting their vote.

 

I actually agree with this. We may see the republican party move in a more libertarian direction. We may see a president with ideas very similar to the ideas of Dr Paul. What we won't see is Dr Paul actually winning a presidential election if he gets the nod. It may well be time for the republican party to co-opt the libertarians by adopting more libertarian principles and maybe even running a libertarian-leaning presidential candidate, but if the republicans actually want to win in 2012, that candidate won't be Dr Paul.

 

Check this out:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/35527509#35527509

 

I would exactly classify that as "next to unanswerable". The only way they could be more secure is if they actually were unanswerable to anyone. Of course, that's the point.

Eh, it is a messy thing. On the one hand, the only way you can do something about a specific ruling is either through impeachment proceedings (increadibly rare) or a constitutional amendment (less rare, but still far from common or easy). That's pretty strong insulation. On the other hand, they are tied to the constitution, which means if an amendment is passed, and they try to over-ride it, impeachment should be immediate. Basically, the Supreme Court is something of an all-or-nothing gambit.

My point is was that constitutional law was just that: law. The legislative branch is inherrantly tied to it. As far as the social conservatives go, I think past history has demonstrated that the system works quite well. Unconstitutional laws have been passed by the legislatures. They've been struck down by the Courts. Now, the move is to enact them through amendments, the only remaining way. Those have fallen flat so far for the simple reason that they don't have the massive support they'd need. Ragusa seemed to me to be saying that politics and moral law should stay seperate. I'm pointing out how they inherrantly can't without re-writing the Constitution.

Yes, that was what I meant. Whether Ron Paul was a Republican, Libertarian, conservative, or what. It's a little messy because it largely depends on your perspective and definitions.

It means he's not a 100% fiscal conservative, but rather something of a middle ground, like a centrist Republican (though mostly conservative from what I know). Unfortunately, that may not fly with 'pure' fiscal conservatives. Basically, I think he's something of the 'McCain' of fiscal conservatism: rather radical in some points, more than a little liberal in others, but still more conservative than anything else.

I wrote that before I read Nyk's post. Basically, I was agreeing with him.

The thing is, I'm not sure the modern Republican leaders are flexible or willing to change enough to do this. I think it may be safer for reasonable Republicans to become Libertarians (or some other Independent) rather than hope the leadership see reason.