There may be hope for the Republican party after all!

[redrumloa]

Ron Paul Wins CPAC Straw Poll, Sarah Palin is Third With 7 Percent
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/02/20 ... -with-7%2F

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) ran away with the presidential straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference Saturday, with 31 percent of the vote. Paul's libertarian conservative message has made him a hero to small- government Republicans for years, but this is the first CPAC straw poll he has ever won.

Paul's victory came as a surprise to supporters of Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, who has won the straw poll at this event for the last four years. Romney was second this year, with 22 percent.

 

[metalman]

Paul-bots win another poll!

Boos as Ron Paul wins CPAC straw poll

2395 people voted in the straw poll, 31% of 2,395 is 743.

That means that more than 9,000 people who attended this conference were not Paul-bots.

 

[redrumloa]

Forty-eight percent of those who participated in the contest indicated that they were students, and the divergent reaction to the results reflected the outcome.

When Paul was announced as the winner, his many college-age supporters erupted in the corridors outside the ballroom, yelling, jumping and chanting their candidate’s name.

“We came here a long way to support Ron Paul and the Campaign for Liberty,” said Jeremy Henchcliffe, a student at Central Connecticut State University.

Other conservatives, though, voiced their frustration at Paul’s showing.

“I understand their passion, but he’s not the leader of the conservative movement,” said California Republican Phil Jennerjahn, who is mounting an uphill congressional run in the 33rd District.

We shall see, we shall see. Ron Paul is the last great hope.

 

[faethor]

On Sunday I dug into the latest CPAC. Saw some videos, read the Fox News, read right wing blogs here's what I come away with...

The Republican Party has given up any hope of a centrist position. Instead what I see is two extremist groups fighting it out.


And what was with the joke about bombing the IRS building with a plane? This guy was an extremist and not so much different in his school of thought than those who bombed us on 9/11. Republicans tell us burning flags is wrong, but driving planes into government buildings seems to be acceptable and amusing? Why do Republicans hate America?

 

[ltstanfo]

Ron Paul Wins CPAC Straw Poll, Sarah Palin is Third With 7 Percent
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/02/20 ... -with-7%2F

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) ran away with the presidential straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference Saturday, with 31 percent of the vote. Paul's libertarian conservative message has made him a hero to small- government Republicans for years, but this is the first CPAC straw poll he has ever won.

Paul's victory came as a surprise to supporters of Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, who has won the straw poll at this event for the last four years. Romney was second this year, with 22 percent.

I can only hope that this was a joke at CPAC. Ron Paul, while having some good ideas will be nothing more than a benefit to the Democrats if he chooses to run in 2012. He'll do what he always does and take votes away from the Republicans.

What I would like to see happen is whichever Republican becomes the candidate offer Ron Paul either the VP slot, economic adviser position or possibly treasury slot.

Regards,
Ltstanfo

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

I can only hope that this was a joke at CPAC. Ron Paul, while having some good ideas will be nothing more than a benefit to the Democrats if he chooses to run in 2012. He'll do what he always does and take votes away from the Republicans.

Unless he runs for the Republicans. Which is kinda the point. So if they don't want him to take votes they have to keep him - and his supporters are building to take over the party. They tend to be younger and will outlive the old guard obviously. They will also outlive Ron Paul but Rand is being groomed.

These takeovers tend to take years but that seems to be where it's going. The old guard can try to strip away key supporters by handing them contracts and positions and other corrupting inducements but it depends on how principled the membership is.

And the Ron Paul faction isn't the largest faction but they may be the most motivated and that counts for a lot.

 

[faethor]

If Palin maintains her present level of support and wants to run for President she's a shoe-in. The question will be will Ron Paul, or anyone, want the #2 slot.

 

[ltstanfo]

If Palin maintains her present level of support and wants to run for President she's a shoe-in. The question will be will Ron Paul, or anyone, want the #2 slot.

You really bring up an interesting point. I believe however that Palin is a "has been" with regards to possibly running for president. While she may have been a contender at one time, she has committed too many "gaffs" to (IMO) ever be considered a serious candidate. In a way, much like Ron Paul, she has a large, loyal following but (thus far at least) cannot gain any real (political) ground.

I don't mind admitting that when she was McCain's VP choice I liked her. I liked her right up to the point when she quit (and walked away) her job as governor of Alaska. That finished her political career as far as I am concerned. Now her recent rants about jokes (including the recent "Family Guy" episode) involving Down syndrome being aimed at her son are over the top in my opinion. If she cannot figure out that the joke was aimed at her and not her poor son, then she falls even further from my positive opinion.

Regards,
Ltstanfo

 

[faethor]

I don't mind admitting that when she was McCain's VP choice I liked her. I liked her right up to the point when she quit (and walked away) her job as governor of Alaska. That finished her political career as far as I am concerned. Now her recent rants about jokes (including the recent "Family Guy" episode) involving Down syndrome being aimed at her son are over the top in my opinion. If she cannot figure out that the joke was aimed at her and not her poor son, then she falls even further from my positive opinion.

What characteristics makes Palin likeable as a leader?

Did you see the Family Guy actress', who has Downs BTW, respond to Palin? As for Trig I see Palin decry his political use at the same time she's using him.

 

[ltstanfo]

What characteristics makes Palin likeable as a leader?

Did you see the Family Guy actress', who has Downs BTW, respond to Palin? As for Trig I see Palin decry his political use at the same time she's using him.

I liked the fact that she did not seem to look down / talk down to supporters and the public as many other candidates do. She comes across as "one of us". This ability to connect with the public makes her "likeable" as a leader (IMO). In my opinion, her "public image" is much like Reagan's was... you just like the person. Keep in mind though that her "down to earth" attitude is not enough to make her a leader, let alone the VP or possibly the Pres. The fact that she was serving (at the time) as a governor of a state told me that she had skills needed to possibly be VP (she had also been a mayor prior to that so I viewed her "credentials" as meeting my minimum standards). Given that, (at that time) she easily (on paper) equaled the (paper) credentials of Obama (IMO) so her "likability" was a bonus in my view. Both were first term major / national elected officials (I count governor as a national official since they are the POC between their state and the federal government) so for me, it came down to her appeal and political affiliation.

But as I have mentioned previously, she "fell from (my) grace" when she walked away from her office and her recent rants have only further weakened my opinion of her. Let her stay on Fox and make public speeches but I am finished with her as a viable political candidate.

Regards,
Ltstanfo

 

[cecilia]

If she cannot figure out that the joke was aimed at her and not her poor son, then she falls even further from my positive opinion.

and the previous joke told by Letterman falls into that category.

she does not Get It. she is a laughing stock.

she wants to use her retarded son to get positive publicity and all that makes her in my view is a bad mother.

she wasn't able to teach her daughter how to be responsible and use a condom but we are supposed to think she's swell because they had the baby. wow, how pathetic - and hypocritical

she's just dumb. I wouldn't vote for her as dog catcher

 

[faethor]

Thanks for the feedback Ltstanfo. It's always interesting to me how people can see the same thing and interprete it in two different ways.

What looks to be folksiness in Palin I see as talking down to people. It assumes the receiver isn't able to handle the subject unless it's wrapped in a pretty package of imaginary ancedotes.

 

[ltstanfo]

Thanks for the feedback Ltstanfo. It's always interesting to me how people can see the same thing and interprete it in two different ways.

What looks to be folksiness in Palin I see as talking down to people. It assumes the receiver isn't able to handle the subject unless it's wrapped in a pretty package of imaginary ancedotes.

Yeah, it is interesting how two or more people can be in the exact same situation, see the same thing and when asked about the situation later, multiple different answers can arise. I am certainly no expert but I suspect (at least in Palin's case) it may have something to do (at least in part) with where you live and how you were brought up. You are correct that I regard Palin's outward appeal as "folksiness" (wish I would have thought of that word previously) and frankly she reminds me of a lot of the people I grew up around (most of my childhood was spent either growing up on (or near) military bases or spending time on my grandparent's farm in rural Arkansas).

I recall one encounter at the LAX airport several years back where I was approached by a lady who identified herself as being from New York. At first she seemed nice enough as she inquired about where I was from (she heard me talking with a co-worker from Alabama). Once I relayed that I was from Alabama she bemoaned the fact that she could never live here since there was nothing to do. She asked if I had been to New York and praised (admittedly) wonderful Broadway, etc... and that there was always something to do, 24/7. She could not understand why the south "rolled up the sidewalks" at 9pm. When I offered that it was simply a slower pace of life she seemed (to me anyway) incredulous and wandered off. To me, in the end, she was snobbish, looked down on anyone who did not agree with her and was rude. Who knows, had I grown up in a major city my reaction might have been different.

Regards,
Ltstanfo

 

[Glaucus]

I've never been to NYC, but I can understand why people who live there would think it's the center of the universe. Joke about Toronto is that Torontonians think they're at the center of the universe. And with the largest phallic symbol in North America protruding from the shores of lake Ontario up into the heavens, well, who can blame them? But looking past that, Toronto is pretty awesome and for the same reasons they say NYC is awesome - there's always something new and exciting to do. It's never the same old same old in TO, you've always got something to stimulate you - even if you think the only great thing about TO is it's cheap airfare to Europe and everywhere else. It's great walking around downtown at midnight on a Wednesday and seeing people in the streets feeling safe and with places to go. In contrast, Winnipeg downtown is a ghost town after 7pm (even in the summer). Sure it can be frustrating that many Torontonians have no idea where Winnipeg is on a map, but then, I'd have a hard time placing Regina on a map, even though I've driven through it a number of times.

Anyway, if you ever need to piss of a New Yorker, just tell them you've been there but think Chicago is better. Right Cecilia? :mrgreen:

 

[ltstanfo]

I've never been to NYC, but I can understand why people who live there would think it's the center of the universe. Joke about Toronto is that Torontonians think they're at the center of the universe. And with the largest phallic symbol in North America protruding from the shores of lake Ontario up into the heavens, well, who can blame them? But looking past that, Toronto is pretty awesome and for the same reasons they say NYC is awesome - there's always something new and exciting to do. It's never the same old same old in TO, you've always got something to stimulate you - even if you think the only great thing about TO is it's cheap airfare to Europe and everywhere else. It's great walking around downtown at midnight on a Wednesday and seeing people in the streets feeling safe and with places to go. In contrast, Winnipeg downtown is a ghost town after 7pm (even in the summer). Sure it can be frustrating that many Torontonians have no idea where Winnipeg is on a map, but then, I'd have a hard time placing Regina on a map, even though I've driven through it a number of times.

Anyway, if you ever need to piss of a New Yorker, just tell them you've been there but think Chicago is better. Right Cecilia? :mrgreen:

I've remember Toronto - went there for what effectively was the last big Amiga show. I had a great time while I was there but I wish I could have stayed longer. Seems like a fun place to visit.

I like Vancouver - been there several times (unfortunately not in the last 3 years) and loved every week I was there. I'd put Vancouver up against NYC anytime (no offense C). I'd also choose it over Chicago (been once.. that was enough).

I've been to several other large cities in western Europe but at the end of the day, I'm happy to be back here. It's just what I am used to and comfortable with.

Regards,
Ltstanfo

 

[Robert]

Toronto is pretty awesome and for the same reasons they say NYC is awesome - there's always something new and exciting to do.

I loved both of those cities.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

[Palin] comes across as "one of us".

It's sad when average Americans view themselves as morons.

If they were better educated then "one of us" might be someone worth having.

Of course, she is NOT one of you. Nor was Reagan.

---

Mind you, if you are referring to the urban versus rural thing, she has that "rural" presentation, but that is superficial.

 

[faethor]

Thanks for the feedback Ltstanfo. It's always interesting to me how people can see the same thing and interprete it in two different ways.

What looks to be folksiness in Palin I see as talking down to people. It assumes the receiver isn't able to handle the subject unless it's wrapped in a pretty package of imaginary ancedotes.

Yeah, it is interesting how two or more people can be in the exact same situation, see the same thing and when asked about the situation later, multiple different answers can arise. I am certainly no expert but I suspect (at least in Palin's case) it may have something to do (at least in part) with where you live and how you were brought up. You are correct that I regard Palin's outward appeal as "folksiness" (wish I would have thought of that word previously) and frankly she reminds me of a lot of the people I grew up around (most of my childhood was spent either growing up on (or near) military bases or spending time on my grandparent's farm in rural Arkansas).

I guess that's what I see as the problem. The President isn't someone I'm going chat with on the back porch drinking Sweet Tea. Nor should she/he. That doesn't mean they can't care about the us or the nation.

I'm with you on Palin's leaving the Governship early is not an attractive trait for a future leader. They stay in and get the job done. Sarah took office in late 2006, spent most of 2008 running for President, and left half way through 2009. Giving her the benefit of doubt she was leading a year.

 

[ltstanfo]

I guess that's what I see as the problem. The President isn't someone I'm going chat with on the back porch drinking Sweet Tea. Nor should she/he. That doesn't mean they can't care about the us or the nation.

Again an interesting point but one that I disagree with. I think it is very important that a leader (certainly the president) be able to connect with the population. Recall Roosevelt's "fireside chats", Kennedy using early TV (alot), Reagan's mastery of television (and interviews) and even Clinton's effective use of television. Whether you liked these individuals or not, they were able to connect with the (mainstream) population and generally get their work done as well as be held in fairly high regard. By comparison look at the latest two presidents. Consider their "mainstream" appeal vs the above mentioned predecessors. One was considered by many to be a "monkey" while the other is considered by many to be an "elitist / out of touch with the mainstream". I view this (at least in part) as part of their problem in getting their agenda(s) pushed through Congress. I do not say these things to be political, merely to try to illustrate my point that if a leader cannot connect with the electorate, they cannot effectively lead. I would add that indirectly, if the perception is the president does not connect, they do not care about us. Finally, I would add that perception is a lot in politics, possibly one of the most important things when dealing with the public.

I'm with you on Palin's leaving the Governship early is not an attractive trait for a future leader. They stay in and get the job done. Sarah took office in late 2006, spent most of 2008 running for President, and left half way through 2009. Giving her the benefit of doubt she was leading a year.

About the same as Obama (as 1st term senator). But the past is the past and Sarah (IMO) is now part of the past. Anyone who still seriously considers her a viable candidate has lost touch with reality.

Regards,
Ltstanfo

 

[faethor]

I think it is very important that a leader (certainly the president) be able to connect with the population.

Certainly a good trait. Palin seems to want to translate everything into a cute story. I see that as assuming the audience is all a bunch of simpletons.

]One was considered by many to be a "monkey" while the other is considered by many to be an "elitist / out of touch with the mainstream".

I'd argue the Monkey was very good at getting his agenda pushed through Congress. He accomplished most all of his goals. One noteable exception was turning over Social Security to the stock market. The problem was his agenda was highly flawed. We're living with the ramifications of those today.

As to the 'elitist', Obama had higher inital approval ratings then any of the other Presidents you cited. Compare Obama to Reagan. Reagan had nearly 51% of the popular vote. Obama had nearly 53%. While Obama had less electorical votes he had a greater # of popular votes. This of course comes with the higher popularity and higher population than Reagan's time.

Obama's economic programs got started in July. This is fairly early for a new President. Compare Reagan who in 1981 had good economic news but his ecomic plan wasn't in place until Fall of 1981 and started in spring of 1982. So, Obama does have some ability to push some things through Congress.

I think what will be telling for Obama is fall 2011 - 2012. If the nation starts to pick up from the outfall of the Bush Recession, Obama will likely regain his popularity and be much harder to beat then he might be today.

About the same as Obama (as 1st term senator). But the past is the past and Sarah (IMO) is now part of the past. Anyone who still seriously considers her a viable candidate has lost touch with reality.

Seems to me the US Senate is a much different place than a State's Governor. One plus I see of being a Senator is understanding how that branch of Congress works and it should help get polices through. I think this shows as Obama still tries to extend the olive branch to Republicans. IMO the US people respect someone that's a bit more heavy handed in their approach. If Obama gives up on a coalition and works for his own agenda he'll be better off.

The Tea Baggers seem to believe Palin retains some viability. If she keeps her popularity up she could be a problem for the Republicans. If she wants the nomiation and doesn't get it I think quite a few voters will not turn out at the polls. Or even worse if she becomes the first Tea Party Presidential Candidate it'll divide Republican voters.