Yes, Ron Paul has won his second consecutive CPAC straw poll and as expected all the anti-libertarian, defense=offense, neo-conservatives (and Donald Trump, whatever he is) are dismissing the victory. They say it doesn’t mean anything. They don’t know what they are talking about, as usual. Of course it means something.
It doesn’t necessarily mean that Ron Paul will be the GOP nominee in 2012. Paul hasn’t even announced if he’s running yet. The victory’s meaning really has little to do with 2012 and much to do with the future direction of the Republican Party.
The organizers of CPAC sheepishly denounced their own straw poll prior to announcing Ron Paul as the winner. Appropriately enough, while they denounced the presidential preference question they gushed when talking about the results to the other questions in the poll. Yet the same people that voted for Ron Paul answered those other questions as well. Why did they not suggest that those results were skewed?
Yes, Ron Paul’s Campaign For Liberty and Young Americans for Liberty made it easier for supporters to attend CPAC by offering discounted tickets and lodging packages. They did not “bus them in” as some suggested. The reason so many showed up at CPAC for Ron Paul is because they are true political activists. They are active, vocal, and dedicated to spreading the liberty message to those who are and aren’t willing to listen. This is something the GOP has been missing for a long time.
It is mainly foreign policy differences that keep the old guard GOP from embracing these young Ron Paul activists. Perhaps if the rest of the Republican Party could ever understand the fundamental differences between…
preemptive war and national defense
isolationist and non-interventionist
anti-semitism and ending all foreign aid
blaming America and blaming American policy
…they could welcome Ron Paul and his supporters. The CPAC straw poll result suggests an effort should be made to understand and perhaps embrace these differences. After all, isn’t the ultimate Republican goal to defeat Obama in 2012? Seeing eye to eye with Ron Paul and his numerous activist supporters could go a long way toward that goal.
I have little hope this will happen, but in the long run it may not matter. Many of those young Ron Paul supporters are growing up, feeding on liberty, and will become office-seekers in the future.
The result of the CPAC straw poll does have meaning. It suggests the future is burning bright with the fire of liberty.
There are cerebral strategists and balls-to-the-wall activists in the tent of Ron Paul. Both were evident at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) today. Prior to Rand Paul’s stellar speech the surprise speaker was Donald Trump. Many of us in the audience had come to get our seats to see The Rand instead of The Donald, and things got a bit ugly.
During Trump’s speech there were some vocal activists shouting out Ron Paul’s name, among other things. At one point when Trump mentioned there were no good GOP candidates the shouts of Ron Paul became too much for him. The video below shows what happened:
Yes, the out-of-touch celebrity with lots of money reacts by telling the crowd that Ron Paul has zero chance of winning. I immediately said something that was later echoed by Rand Paul, “Trump has an even less of a chance of winning than Ron Paul”. That was only the beginning.
Last week the Campaign For Liberty sponsored a a foreign policy debate between Bruce Fein and conservative radio talk show host Jeff Kuhner. Fein has recently released a book published by the Campaign for Liberty called “American Empire: Before the Fall“.
Please take some time to watch video of the debate embedded below. It truly demonstrates the dividing line between non-intervention and intervention. Both Fein and Kuhner provide excellent arguments, however I feel that Fein missed an opportunity to point out a serious flaw in Kuhner’s interventionist logic.
First, Kuhner does not dispute and therefore admits Fein’s assertion that the war on terror is a perpetual war. Later, Kuhner cites putting the Japanese in interment camps during WWII was a necessary and temporary evil. He argues that during times of war we must be willing to sacrifice some of our liberties so that we can be more free down the road once the fighting is over.
Fein could have jumped on this point by asking Kuhner the following question:
If we are in a perpetual war aren’t the civil liberties sacrifices we are making also permanent?
Equating the war on terror with WWII is like saying Coca-cola and orange soda taste the same. I bet Kuhner and his interventionist peers would be unhappy if they ordered a Coke and were brought orange soda instead.
Like many free Americans who want to stay that way, I was at a Tea Party rally on April 15th. I’m not a card-carrying member of that group but I agree with them wholeheartedly on the bad direction this country is taking under the Obama regime. So I picked a spot on the sidewalk on Menaul Boulevard at 4 in the afternoon, brandished my sign, yelled a bit, waved a bit, and said what had to be said. For the most part, the event was very, very peaceful except for a young lady who stopped at the light and tried to share the water she had with her in her environmentally-friendly and recyclable water bottle. I was deeply dismayed for it appeared she was far more in need of a shower than any of us.
But it is the difference between conservatives and those on the Left that we tend not to make horse’s rear ends of ourselves at rallies and protests. I don’t think I’ve ever read of a single conservative riot, no angry mobs of grown-ups running down the street overturning cars, setting fire to buildings, breaking windows, pillaging, and looting. But every time I see rallies on the Left, there they are obstructing traffic, breaking things, making their presence known through obscene gestures and foul language. None of that was in evidence at this day’s Tea Party protest.
We voiced our opinions on Mr. Obama, federal spending, politicians who won’t listen to us, liberty, freedom, the Constitution, you name it, we wrote it on out signs and discussed it with one another as the time passed. A finer group of people I could never find myself around. Thoughtful, opinionated, and, most importantly, intelligent.
We came, we made our point, and if the powers that be still won’t take notice of what we have to say, they’ll hear from us again this November.
The Campaign For Liberty has posted Tom Woods’ excellent speech at CPAC regarding state nullification against unconstitutional federal laws as an avenue for real change in the United States.
Yes, Ron Paul won the CPAC straw poll and delivered a good speech. Glenn Beck delivered a great speech too, but for my money it was a Judge Andrew Napolitano speech that was the best of CPAC 2010.
As I sat in the audience following Judge Andrew Napolitano’s speech during the Liberty Forum at CPAC 2010 I couldn’t help but wish he was delivering it in the main ballroom on the final afternoon leading in to Glenn Beck’s keynote. Then again, he may have been booed, but that wouldn’t have stopped him.
While Glenn Beck’s speech was very good and included arguments the GOP needed to hear, the Judge’s speech was an uncompromising and no-holds-barred session of truth-telling.
Editor’s Note: Sometimes it’s good to listen to the other side with an open mind because perhaps they know better. This article about Ron Paul was sent to us by our neo-conservative friend, Richard Deekbag, founder of the following website (we apologize for the length of the URL):
I mean just look at the guy. Ron Paul is all skinny, old, and wrinkly. His speeches are rambling diatribes supporting the long debunked conspiracy theory known as the U.S. Constitution. Everyone knows the Constitution expired more than 100 years ago and has no place in our Conservative-Progressive-Democratic-Socialist-Liberal-Republican (ConProDemSocLibRep) society.
After all it was Ru Paul’s isolationist ideas that lead America into its darkest period following the Revolutionary War after his idiotic idols, the Founding Fathers, defeated the British occupiers. Well, they were more like friendly visitors than occupiers. Visitors that honored the American colonies by taxing them heavily and treating them like peasants.
Everyone knows by now that Ron Paul’s efforts to abolish the massively successful Federal Reserve bank is kookier than cookies. The Fed has been our savior over and over and over and over and over again over the years. If it weren’t for the Fed the so-called “Great Depression” would have been much shorter. That’s a gigantic problem because we needed it to last much longer just to prove that government regulation is the lifeblood of the economy!
It’s been played over and over again by now. The large amount of “boos” Ron Paul received after the announcement of the results of the CPAC Straw Poll where he won with 31% of the vote. Not much has been explained about how or why someone who got this kind of support would be booed like he was. Here is my take.
These are the facts, I know because I was there.
Ron Paul’s keynote speech on Friday was the first speech in the main room to pack the house and require overflow seating in other rooms. He was welcomed with cheers as can be witnessed by watching the video of his speech. His supporters (31% apparently) had a chance to get into the main room to hear his speech.
Saturday, the Campaign For Liberty held a panel discussion that began at 2pm and didn’t end until nearly 4pm. By this time the line waiting to get into the main room was 8-10 deep and down the long hotel hallway. When I left the Campaign for Liberty panel I overheard a volunteer telling people in line that they would likely not get into the main room and should instead find an overflow room to watch the event.
CPAC sells Saturday-only tickets. A co-worker and his wife took advantage of this so they could see Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich, and Glenn Beck. Many people, apparently, took advantage of this which left those that attended the conference all 3 days in overflow rooms.
Those that came on Saturday were not able to vote in the straw poll. The polling ended on Friday at 1pm.
So, those that were in the main ballroom during the straw poll announcement were mostly unfriendly to Ron Paul. I didn’t even know there were boos when they announced the results because in the overflow room I was in there were mostly cheers and clapping drowning out the boos from the main room.
It makes for a good story for the media, pointing out the boos, but if the room was full of Ron Paul supporters and Mitt Romney (or someone else) had won there would have been a large number of boos at the results.
Please note, I’m not suggesting that Ron Paul supporters were blocked from the main room on purpose. It’s just the way it ended up due to the logistics of so many people coming to CPAC on Saturday to listen to Glenn Beck, Coulter, and Gingrich. Most of these people were neo-conservatives antithetical to Ron Paul’s foreign policy of non-intervention who did not and could not vote in the straw poll.
It’s safe to say that if the panel at 2pm by the Campaign For Liberty called “Why Real Conservatives are Against the War on Terrorism” were held in the main room, the cheers would have drowned out the boos when the poll results were announced. Of course, Judging from the boos in the main room, there may have been a mutiny if the anti-war panel were held there.
I’ve seen many people incredulous that Ron Paul could somehow win the CPAC 2010 straw poll. I’ve seen it on Twitter, emails, blogs, and comments on blogs. I’ve read that people call him “crazy” or “liberal”. I even witnessed someone say they would vote for Hitler if he was running against Ron Paul. Yeah, and Ron Paul is the crazy one.
So if you believe Ron Paul is crazy on foreign policy I ask you to watch the following videos and learn why it’s quite possible Ron Paul is actually the sane and constitutional one on foreign policy.
If you don’t have 90 minutes to spare to watch both videos in their entirety then go to 16:55 of the 2nd video and just watch Jacob Hornberger’s speech. If you do have 90 minutes then please watch both parts in their entirety. This video is from last Saturday afternoon at CPAC 2010 from a panel discussion called, “Why Real Conservatives Are Against the War on Terrorism”.
The panel is made up of:
Philip Giraldi, former CIA officer.
Karen Kwiatkowski, retired U.S Air Force, Lieutenant Colonel whose assignments included duties as a Pentagon desk officer and a variety of roles for the National Security Agency.
Bruce Fein, associate deputy attorney general from 1981 to 1982 under President Ronald Reagan.
Saturday was the final day of CPAC 2010 and it was a great one. I started the day by attending Ann Coulter’s speech in the main ballroom. She was funny and quick-witted as expected. Also, as expected, she continued playing the part of the neo-conservative poster girl. At one point she admitted, “If Ron Paul is behind it, and it has nothing to do with foreign policy, I agree.” Regardless of your opinion on Coulter it’s a good sign that Ron Paul is popular enough to warrant such discussion.
I then made my way to the friendly environs of the Young Americans for Liberty Youth Summit. This young group of American patriots left me impressed. There is no doubt that these students of today will be the liberty leaders of tomorrow.
Following the summit was a panel of speakers discussing why good conservatives are anti-war. The room was packed with two rows of people standing in the back. Philip Girardi, Karen Kwiatkowski, Bruce Fein, and Jacob Hornberger took turns speaking. All were excellent, but for me, Jacob Hornberger, was the best at clearly articulating all of the major arguments for a non-interventionist foreign policy. He did it with passion. It rivaled Judge Napolitano’s speech from the Liberty Forum the other night.
Liberty Maven
“.
Loading ...
