Ron Paul Wins Presidential Straw Poll at CPAC

[kfson]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...raw-poll-cpac/



"Ron Paul Wins Presidential Straw Poll at CPAC

FOXNews.com

Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas known for his libertarian views, ran for president in 2008 but was never a serious contender for the GOP nomination.

Ron Paul has ended Mitt Romney's three-year run as conservatives' favorite for president, taking 31 percent of the vote in the Conservative Political Action Conference's annual straw poll.

Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas known for his libertarian views, ran for president in 2008 but was never a serious contender for the GOP nomination.

Romney, former Massachusetts governor and also a 2008 GOP candidate, has won the last three presidential straw polls at the annual conference. This year, he came in second, with 22 percent.

Sarah Palin, who didn't attend the conference, was a distant third in the straw poll, with 7 percent, followed by Tim Pawlenty, the Minnesota governor, and Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana.

The straw poll is not binding -- and not necessarily a good forecaster, given that in 2008, John McCain went on to take the party's nomination over Romney.

Results of this year's poll were announced just as the crowd prepared for the conference's keynote speaker, Fox News host Glenn Beck."

[David Jamieson]

foxnews isn't news. lol

it's incitement in an entertaining way and a vehicle for the craziness and warped draconian political views of it's owner Rupert Murdoch.

People actually don't put them on par with real news agencies do they?

I mean, they are all propaganda outlets, but really Fox?

the simpsons is the best show they have. lol

[1bad65]

People actually don't put them on par with real news agencies do they?

Apparently they do. FoxNews has higher ratings than CNN and MSNBC.

Do you consider CBS News and NBC News "real news agencies"?

[David Jamieson]

Apparently they do. FoxNews has higher ratings than CNN and MSNBC.

Do you consider CBS News and NBC News "real news agencies"?

well, I'm wondering if those numbers are coming from texas! lol

I would call CNN reputable when compared to the rest and incrementally decreasing depending on who owns the comapny and their political leanings.

Near as I can tell, they are all muddied by the corporate overlords.

And in all seriousness, mass media in all it's forms are merely there to release propaganda for the most part. The news gets thrown in along the way:

Ie: A car crashed, a law passed, a person was murdered, a hurrican is coming, a team won.

the rest is op-ed crap and is simply not news in any way shape or form really.

Fox news themselves have publicly stated that their "foxnews friends" are NOT newsies.

Opinion editorial rants are not news.

But then again. Texas! lol

awesome.

[BoulderDawg]

If nothing else this shows the desparation of the teabaggers.

Just for the sake of argument let's say Paul is the best candidate to be president.....even so they want to put a very demanding job, sometimes 20 hours a day, into the hands of a man that would be 77 when sworn into office.

[David Jamieson]

If nothing else this shows the desparation of the teabaggers.

Just for the sake of argument let's say Paul is the best candidate to be president.....even so they want to put a very demanding job, sometimes 20 hours a day, into the hands of a man that would be 77 when sworn into office.

Bit ageist there pal.

especially considering the average life expectancy is approaching 80 and for someone that lives the life of a millionaire, as Paul does, even longer.

I'm sure he has the right attitude to be able to serve a term.

I doubt he'll get elected on one point alone: he's a crackpot, supported by moonbats and propped up by desperate and crazy people filled with rage and frustration over their inept system of governance and their steadily sinking country.

[kfson]

well, I'm wondering if those numbers are coming from texas! lol

I would call CNN reputable when compared to the rest and incrementally decreasing depending on who owns the comapny and their political leanings.

Near as I can tell, they are all muddied by the corporate overlords.

And in all seriousness, mass media in all it's forms are merely there to release propaganda for the most part. The news gets thrown in along the way:

Ie: A car crashed, a law passed, a person was murdered, a hurrican is coming, a team won.

the rest is op-ed crap and is simply not news in any way shape or form really.

Fox news themselves have publicly stated that their "foxnews friends" are NOT newsies.

Opinion editorial rants are not news.

But then again. Texas! lol

awesome.

It's probably straight out of Austin, similar to this important info from that important land:

"Jennifer Aniston took her expensive gun metal gray Bentley out for a luxurious spin in L.A. on Monday.

Jennifer Aniston
Move over J.Lo, there's a new Jenny from the block.

Read more: http://www.tmz.com/#ixzz0gOkb145m "

[1bad65]

the rest is op-ed crap and is simply not news in any way shape or form really.

Fox news themselves have publicly stated that their "foxnews friends" are NOT newsies.

Opinion editorial rants are not news.

Agreed. But notice Fox admits that particular show is not a news show. CBS and NBC did not admit to manufacturing news until they were forced to. In CBS's case it cost Dan Rather his job. In NBC's case they agreed to pay GM millions.

[1bad65]

If nothing else this shows the desparation of the teabaggers.

Yet you guys nominated a community agitator with zero private sector experience.

FYI, Romney won that straw poll the last 3 years, and he has never won the nomination. It's a non-binding straw poll done years before the campaign even starts.

[BoulderDawg]

Bit ageist there pal.

especially considering the average life expectancy is approaching 80 and for someone that lives the life of a millionaire, as Paul does, even longer.

Do you know anybody in their late 70s?

There is simply nobody that I would want in a job like that starting at age 77 no matter what shape he/she is in. That would mean he would be 85 when he left office....That's just too old.

Remember Reagan? He barely knew who he was when he left office.

[Drake]

Talk about a short-lived victory by the democrats...

[dimethylsea]

If nothing else this shows the desparation of the teabaggers.

Just for the sake of argument let's say Paul is the best candidate to be president.....even so they want to put a very demanding job, sometimes 20 hours a day, into the hands of a man that would be 77 when sworn into office.

Ron Paul could be expected to do as President precisely what he has always done as a Congressman. Abide by his principles and vote a very specific and predictable attitude with respect to the Constitution.

In the event he were elected he would not be working near as "hard" as most Presidents simply because he wouldn't even have to think about his actions. It's hard-wired at this point.

He would be veto'ing virtually every bill that came across his desk and issuing executive orders for portions of the executive branch to stop doing things they do now.

And he'd probably refuse to nominate a Chairmen of the Fed etc.

Honestly Ron Paul could probably be 100 and his performance would be no worse than it would at 55. People may call him a loon, a nut, etc. but the simple fact is that he is nothing if not CONSISTENT.

He has a specific outlook, a set of guidelines, and, love him or hate him, he's never swerved.

Progressives may think his leadership would be ruinous to the nation.. but they can't say he's a hypocrite. Unlike most of the GOP fatcat liars (and the Demo fatcat liars too I might add).

My personal view is this..
War is the health of the state. I voted for Barack Obama in an effort to vote against War.

Unless he shapes up on the foreign aggression front, healthcare or no, I'm going to vote Green or Lib next round. Even if it's a wasted vote at least it's not a vote for undeclared war.

[David Jamieson]

Do you know anybody in their late 70s?

There is simply nobody that I would want in a job like that starting at age 77 no matter what shape he/she is in. That would mean he would be 85 when he left office....That's just too old.

Remember Reagan? He barely knew who he was when he left office.

I know a man who is 100 years. He will be 101. He is remarkable for sure, but no, I wouldn't put him in public office.

And my Mother is in her 70's and sharp as a tack. I would put money on her in jeopardy.

And yes, I actually have quite a few friends in their 60's and 70's even in to the 80's! Great Guys!

I keep friends as young as newborn and as old as a human can get. lol
Reagan was in good shape when he finished his last term. The "I can't recall" was politics and 5th amendment stuff. It was of course later embellished further to protect him I suppose. I mean he WAS the POTUS afterall.

Anyway, ageism is not appropriate in this day and age. Perhaps it never was. If anything we should each hold the elderly to be dear to us and to be held up as those who went before. They do not lack wisdom or knowledge in a great deal of ways and elder statesmen are often the best for a nation.

just sayin...

[kfson]

I'm going to vote Green or Lib next round. Even if it's a wasted vote at least it's not a vote for undeclared war.

What do you think about the Libertarian corner stone, "no first strike"?

[1bad65]

There is simply nobody that I would want in a job like that starting at age 77 no matter what shape he/she is in. That would mean he would be 85 when he left office....That's just too old.

77+4=85???