Paul was first, Romney second, Palin a distant third.

Amazing that in our poll prediction contest (with poor participation by the way, you slackers) not a single entry predicted the Ron Paul victory.

Why did Ron Paul, a guy who has never and will never have a chance of actually being elected, win this thing?


  • Brian H

    “I’ve been keeping score and so far none of the regulars here have tried to answer your question.”

    OK. Here it goes.

    Why did Ron Paul, a guy who has never and will never have a chance of actually being elected, win this thing?

    Because the Paul flock flooded the CPAC, as they always do, in an attempt to make their Messiah appear to be more legit than reality knows him to be.

    You may not like or agree with my answer but it is am answer. I do believe that MANY people in this forum have tried to anser Jason’s question. Disagreement with a response to the question does not negate that there was a response to the question, does it?

    • Promise Kept


      Thank you for restating the obvious part of Jasons’ question, but it’s the, “thing” part, I was pointing to as left unanswered.

      It was a scientific poll. Fabrizio and McLaughlin gave us all the criteria and demographics involved:

      I used the surface numbers in my first post above to show that there is more to the question than meets the eye, or your answer.

      “Why did Ron Paul,…win this thing?” The “thing” was more than a tally of “who do you want to be the next president”, but if no one wants to pick up on ANY of the details they offered to get a clearer picture, then I won’t ask any further.

      I thought you might appreciate this video showing the media repetition use when describing the booing of the straw poll results, even before they were announced:

  • wade2go

    We have to stop being so short sited and begin thinking general election. Who will resignate with half of the country.

    • Troy La Mana

      Ron Paul or someone very much like him.

      • Troy La Mana

        The Independents win the elections and they like candidates like Paul and Brown.

  • Tenn Joe

    A big group of college kids trying to shake things up.( More of an embarassment for the conventioneers than a shake up,though.)

    Something like 85+% who voted were male and only 24% of the convention took the poll seriously enough to vote.

    This happened all through the 2008 primaries. Any open TV or online poll was bombarded buy the Paulistas. So, looks like we are in for the same shananigans again in 2012.

    We are just going to have to rely on the credible main stream polls for our determination of who GOP voters prefer.

  • Red State Eddio

    I just wanted to be the 100th post on this thread.

  • Rob

    Brian continually makes the point that Paul followers hurl insults and attack people, yet every post he makes is directly insulting anyone who agrees with Paul and supports him. Hypocrite much?

    • Brian H

      I am sure you will provide a specific example of me “directlt insulting” anyone who agrees with Paul.

      If by the tone of my posts you have concluded that my respect for these people is a bit limited….at best, then that fact I will concede.

      Again. It’s sad…and laughable…that you people personalize political differences, predictions, and analysis as “direct insults”. From being called “Jack$#@s” to insulting and calling out the PD editors it has been extremely obvious who wears the thin skin.

      • Promise Kept

        Bryan, I don’t take your expressions of frustration personally unless you want to make them such. Even then I refuse to let it bother me more than perhaps taking whatever constructive things I can from it and then try to write better posts from it.

        It has been said that I “called out” the editors, but if you read Davids’ reply to me, he didn’t take it as such, and Jasons’ still MIA.

        I understand that there are sensible protocols for posting that are universal, but I kinda feel like I’m being accused of starting a fight because I walked too close to where people were flailing their arms.

        • Brian H

          Understood. There is a reason why it has long been said that in good company one should refrain from conversations about religion and politics. Yet, that is exactly why we enter these forums. Passions and beliefs are strong and we ALL take our own positions to heart. Hopefully when the smoke clears we will have listened as well as spoken and take some of other people’s issues to heart as well. Like I have said…or tried to say. I respect MOST of Paul’s positions and I respect that he holds the feet of other to the fire on may issues. I just simply do not believe Paul is a legit POTUS horse.

      • Mrs Rusty Shackleford

        Speaking of Jason being MIA has anyone actually checked to make sure he isn’t missing? Not like him to miss out on a thread this long!

        Hey David – You check on the other illustrious leaders to make sure they still have a pulse??

        • David Kaiser, Editor

          I can assure you all that Jason and Stephen are just fine.

          Jason is in overtime for his latest book deadline and under an incredible amount of pressure to finish his latest novel.

          He is aware of the fact that this post has gone nuclear, and said he will try to weigh in if time allows. But since PD doesn’t make money, and none of us get paid to be here (which makes Boru’s crack about us “selling out” even more laughable), the job that pays him comes first.

          You can’t really blame him, can you?

          • Brian H

            Damn it! I was wondering my contribution check from PD never arrived! I just assumed it was due to our govt. run snail-mail system.

          • Promise Kept

            David, Thanks for finding Livingston deep in the jungle!

            Jason, You could of at least sent up a flare, buddy! I’m getting grief for wondering out loud why you would ask such a provocative question and then leave us all hanging.

            I’ve been keeping score and so far none of the regulars here have tried to answer your question or any of mine, so maybe a new rephrased thread by David or you might be a good place to start.

            Meanwhile for your entertainment, fair and balanced:

            • Troy La Mana

              Truth hurts sometimes huh? CPAC and Neocons didn’t like the results so now you devalue the results.

  • Rusty Shackleford

    82 post has got to be some sort of PD record, of those about 17 actually post worthy (mine not included, along with all the Black Helicoptors). Minus Troy of course, I think if he and I sat down to a glass of tea at the gun range he could sway me.

    • Troy La Mana

      Tea or Mint Julep. I think if most people would throw out their preconceived notions of Kook and actually listened to what is being said they would think to themselves, “Yeah, the Republicans SHOULD being doing that.”

      Besides, just think of all the money you would save by cutting out all the unconstitutional programs or turning them over to the states. It would be like the boom of the 50’s all over again.

      • Brian H

        Troy. You are right! The problem as I see it, however, is you continue to want to debate us on the merits of Paul’s arguments and message, which is not the point. Most of us ALL in this forum respect and agree with much of Paul’s message. The fact that we question, doubt, and understand the reality of Paul’s potential rise to POTUS is not, in any way, an attack on the man’s positions. It is a refelction of what we perciece to be political reality. Pointing out the fact that the man would be 78 yeras old if elected is not an attack on Paul, it is a fact of life. Pointing out that Paul has never ran strong at a national level is not an attack on Paul, it is a political fact.

        • Troy La Mana

          Ron Paul’s potential to become POTUS is directly proportional to the number of roadblocks the MSM, Democrats and Neocons put in front of him. You attach this message with a different face, say Scott Brown, and you are asking for tickets to the inaugural.

    • Brian H


  • Brian H

    On a different subject. What’s a Boru?

    • David Kaiser, Editor

      Boru, Brian – Irish king in the Dark Ages, according to myth, he lead the Irish to victory over the Vikings at the Battle of Clontarf, but died in hand to hand combat in the battle at the age of 85.

      • Brian H

        Interesting. Thanks, David.

  • JE

    This is entertaining…but to answer the original question that Jason posted: If you look at what the priority was of the voters in the poll (smaller government) and the fact that over half said they wished the GOP had more options, Ron Paul was chosen not because of Ron Paul, but because he represents what most people there wanted. Less government, more freedom, and not the same old establishment rehash. The only other people there who could fit that bill were people that most of us no almost nothing about (mike pence, etc).
    No, ron paul will never be president and most of the folks i know who like him don’t really believe he could be…but they like the ideals that he represents. And if all the republicans and dems want to do are label as freaks and marginalize folks who still are concerned with the constitution, then the dream of the founders for this republic is dead. (And obama/reid/pelosi are no more to blame for that than bush/clinton/bush or a republican party that thought mccain was a good idea).

  • Boru

    Fake conservatives liked the term neo-conservative (neocon) because it wasn’t “fake conservative”. You can’t say “USA should use its power, wealth, and influence on world events and societies” and claim to be a conservative.

    Conservatives “conserve” the founding principles…one of the major principles was to NOT use its power, wealth, and influence on world events and societies.

    So today’s Republican leaders (except you know who) are not conservatives. Oh, they talk the conservative talk, but they are “warfare” imperialists. The Democrats are “welfare” imperialists that talk the socialist talk. Both do nearly the same thing because they are two heads of the same hydra: overtax, overspend, conquer countries, feed the Bank.

    This is why Ron Paul and Ron Paulers are ostracized…they are off the imperialist script. So they call us kooks, extremists, etc. They will act immature to dissolve our mature arguments…they will act mature to dissolve our informal arguments. They simply mean to outlast us.

    They outlasted our types before when Ross Perot ran. The difference is the internet. When Perot ran, the media was controlled about 90% or more. Now, it is much less controlled.

    And as the internet becomes more mainstream (soon it will be accessible from most people’s TV), more people will escape the faux peer pressure and authority of the controlled political media.

    In short: you ain’t seen nothing yet. You probably will be able to outlast Ron Paul, but don’t think things will ever be the same. They’ll have to manufacture the apocolypes to get back the control they want (and they probably will!).

    • Red State Eddio

      Hey, are you the Boru-Judas-Dietrich guy (a.k.a. Lazlo) that got kicked off PD 2 years ago for launching obscene verbal fireballs against a bunch of people?

      • Alaina

        Seriously… can we boot this guy again?

      • RickyD

        The one and only!!!!!!!! He’ll disappear a while then resurface under a different userid. For all we know he’s the same guy posting the other pro-Paul craziness here. It’s fascinating to watch!!!!! The more Paul supporters talk, the more obvious it becomes why Paul remains in the fringe. You are a reflection of your base, and viceversa.

        • Brian H

          HAHAHAHAHA!!! LAZLO!!! Buddy!! Welcome Back!!

          • Rusty Shackleford

            Wow Lazlo really, I almost threw up in my mouth a little bit.

      • David Kaiser, Editor

        The one and only RSE.

        I actually went back to read some of his greatest hits in the archive last night and got a few chuckles.

  • East of Eden

    So wish Ron Paul would go away. He and his revolution make me tired.

    Can we get some grown ups for the White House please?

    • Brian H

      Eden. Thank You for once again taking my long diatribes and formulating them into a brief logical statement that reflect my feelings.


  • Brian H

    Troy. Nobody has suggested that Paul has a weak message. In fact, his message is the only thing viable about Paul. Paul is someone who can, and should, be a continuous reminder to the GOP of what their domestic limited govt. agenda should be. Political critique regarding Paul’s legitimacy as a POTUS candidate are based on some facts.

    1. His age
    2. His showing in past elections.
    3. His association with the tin foils.
    4. His social positions that are oppositional to the GOP platform.
    5. His war positions that are oppositional to the GOP platform.

    It is not the obligation of the GOP to surrender their platform over to Ron and his Paul-ites. Maybe it is time for the Paul to take his 1% to his the much talked about third party status. If he is so strong then he does not the GOP. The Libertarian Party has been around for a while now. If you think that party, or the Tea Party, has a viable national message and organization than….go fo it.

    • Troy La Mana

      As I told David, if age was a reason then Reagan would have never run in 1980.

      Ron Paul actually won the state of Nevada as far as electoral votes go. The state GOP shut down the convention to prevent the delegates from being seated.

      The “tin foils” are in every party. I hope you don’t put the Tea Partiers in the same crowd.

      I, for one, don’t believe any national candidate should have a position on social issues. That is for each state to decide.

      Ron Paul has only said that Congress should do its job and formally declare war. This hasn’t happened since WWII. I agree with Paul that we should pull out of countries that are able to defend themselves. Pull the troops from Western Europe and Southeast Asia. Reassign those troops to the constitutional duty of defending our boarders. If you really want troops in Europe put them in the former Soviet boarder countries.

      Paul isn’t telling the GOP to surrender. He is telling the GOP to get back to its ideals, the reason we vote Republican in the first place. Reagan would be disgusted with a party that he no longer recognized.

      As far as the Tea Party? Many Republicans will tell you their platform is exactly what the GOP should be all about.

      I point you this this article:

  • David Kaiser, Editor

    I groaned to myself this weekend when I heard that Ron Paul had won, knowing that the Paul-ites would be in full force on here.

    And Boru, understand that Ron Paul supporters are more than welcome here. Troy la Mana has been a valuable reader and contributor here for years.

    The people who are not welcome, are the vulgar-tongued, insult-flinging malcontents who have been banned from here for not following the few, simple rules we have.

    And its quite obvious you have not changed your tune by referring to us as male donkeys.

    If you cannot keep your language clean and your insults to yourself, you are absolutely not welcome here.

    If you want to debate Ron Paul and other issues in a reasonable manner, by all means, we’d love the debate.

    • Promise Kept

      David, Since you didn’t mention me by name here, you may have left new readers to think I might have been unwelcome some time present or past.

      I hope that the possibility of my being here hasn’t caused you any grief. I remember a thread you posted where you even offered an unnamed compliment about being my thoughtful than some of the other Paul supporters, but I thought it might have been more of a backhanded slam on them, than kudos to me.

      Perhaps you could open a new thread where we could make a fresh start on this?

      • David Kaiser, Editor

        Promise, I don’t think you’ve ever reverted to nasty-grams from what I can recall. I generally don’t make backhanded compliments, I try to tell it like I feel it is, so if I said you were thoughtful, I meant it.

        Boru is the main culprit, and was warned on several occasions leading up to the election about his vulgar and nasty posts.

        I am more than happy to debate the merits of Ron Paul in a civil manner, so long as we don’t resort to name calling when we agree to disagree, which I suspect will be the end result.

        • Promise Kept

          David, I’m always glad to hear that I’m still welcome, even though I will guess that it’s been close to a a year and a half since my last post here at the PD.

          I want to assure both Jason and you, that I respect your hard work and personal sacrifices to maintain a fine forum like this.

          Some of my earliest forum entries here were after CPAC 2007, because the PDs’ breakdown and analysis of their straw poll, with something new each day, gave us ample time to weigh in with one another on each aspect.

          When I read this years’ CPAC straw-poll results, I thought back to our earliest exchanges, and thought about their relevance now. I had check up to see if what was a helpful barometer then, would get the same evaluation now, or get shelved because it didn’t tell you what you wanted to hear.

          As editors, I support whatever you believe best serves the conservative community you have formed here, but I would encourage further analysis for all our sakes, and not just the Campaign for Libertys’ effective participation in it.

          • David Kaiser, Editor

            Since I really haven’t given my take on the actual results, perhaps a post of my own is in order.

            I’ll have to ponder.

    • Boru

      Before I started getting snide here, I went through months of discussing and debating nicely. Believe me, I politely tolerated a lot of name calling before I started fighting back…and then the moderators pulled the ol’ ‘This is a polite discussion board…blah, blah, blah’. Basically, they couldn’t take what they dished out and asked me to leave.

      Further, the fact is that to discuss things as they are, you have to point out the connections to the neocon machine and how dispicable that is…and boy this site wasn’t going to have that!

      Just remember folks, the purpose of this site is to make a little coin via advertising and to promote political writers and such. Thus, this site is a microcosm of what is wrong with the political parties. Like the writers here, politicians rely on politics for a living…so their priorities get screwed up. Instead of figting for what’s right, they fight for a living…they sell out.

      The reason that Ron Paul is one of the very few who can actually walk the conservative walk is that he already has a “day job”. He doesn’t have to compromise…thus, he was able to consistently vote conservatively all his political life, to create conservative legislation all his life, to vote against pay increases for Congresspeople, to vote against income tax, etc.

      And that is why so many people are attracted to Ron Paul…and loathe the sell outs from the political welfare class: Kennedy, Bush, McCain, Obama, Kerry, etc.

      And Jason and the others similarly compromise and sell out. That’s why they say ridiculous things like “He’s too old.”

      So no. There is no place for valid discussion here.

      • Brian H

        I have been blogging on this site almost daily for over two years. To be honest, I have no idea who you are or when you have ever posted. Every time Ron Paul’s name comes up the roaches come out of the woodwork in droves. SPouting their parrotted “neo-con”, “military industrial complex”, “gold standard” bumper sticker slogans.

        Saying someone is “too old” for a job is not a sell-out, its a political perspective. Simply because reality is something you do not concern yourself with does not mean the rest of us are obligated to avoid it with you.

        ALL of us in this forum have had numerous disagreements many many times. We get heated, argue, debate…some slight insults from time to time….but, in the end we respect the fact that those we are debating are sharing their their true perspectives on issues. Why you choose to internalize and personalize opposition to your poerspectives shows a deep character flaw about you.

        I have debated Kaiser, Troy, German, etc. etc. but have never attacked their motives for their positions.

      • David Kaiser, Editor

        Boru, so because we disagree with you and (rightfully) said your candidate had no shot at winning the Republican nomination, you decided it would be best to resort to cursing and insults?


      • Neil Braithwaite

        Please define “valid” – because this reads a lot like a discussion to me. Point – counterpoint – I’m lovin it!

    • Troy La Mana

      Thanks David. It’s nice to know you are appreciated.

  • Mrs Rusty Shackleford

    Promise Kept, I can understand where you are coming from, but you are coming across pissed. And, you are pissed at the wrong people here. You keep calling out Jason like he needs to be called out. I do not have to defend Jason because: 1. I am so under qualified for that area it is not even funny 2. Jason is well qualified in that area 3. He posted a discussion not an attack – He’s a writer for goodness sakes in case you hadn’t noticed 4. If you pay attention to the flow of this site you will notice that several on here that are regular blogger and responders do not do much posting on the weekends!
    5. Jason might actually be doing the job that pays him and has yet to respond to you and you’ve gone and had a hissy cause you have the patience of a knat.

    But other than that – Keep posting! This is a great discussion!

    • Promise Kept

      Mrs Rusty, I can understand how emotions may be read into my text, when voice and body language are more difficult to discern, but let me assure you that I have been at my computer in the frame of mind that, if I came to your door, I would expect that a courteous conversation would open up, or even an invitation to church.

      I may have sounded impatient when addressing the question Jason asked in this thread, but wasn’t the question posed for an answer?

      It isn’t that Jason himself hasn’t answered, but that NO ONE of the regulars here have much tried to answer it.

      When you try to give responsive, specific input and receive nothing but vague generalities, demeaning dismissal, and more often, no reply at all by several members here, then being in earnest can understandably be misread as “sounding pissed”.

      • Alaina Segovia

        Promise Kept – Personally, I thought I answered all but one of the questions in your initial comment in my first two comments.

  • WilliamK

    I am surprised but not. We have had several members of Ron Pauls campaign join our county committee in 2007/8 and unlike the other presidential supporters who showed up for meetings until their candidate quit, Ron’s kept coming.

    Not only that but they have brought in two more to the committee. They now represent 5 of 12 of the committee. And they are young (late 20’s early 30’s) Have worked for a state assembly race, two county races, five local races and are now pushing a Congressional Candidate.

    Four of them went to CPAC.

    If this is typical of the Ron Paul supporters, and i’ve seen similar with other county committees, they are taking over by simply showing up and working hard and getting asked to help because they show up and work hard.

    Even though they have some unpopular ideas, they work with the party and local candidates. We now have three elected officials (one in the state assembly) who feel they owe the RP supporters for that office. Ron Paul is laying the ground work now. I’m not seeing anyone else getting the “grunt troops” lined up and active. Just “join my email list and send me money or come hear me talk and send me money” stuff.

    One told me that Ron Paul’s goal was to have a coordinator in every election precincts by 2012. He has about 40 out of 295 in our county now. And we only have 97 listed as having a coordinator. (But on the good side, in talking about this it seems that about half we did no know about so we may have almost 120 precinct coordinators.)

  • Brian H

    Why do the Pauliites feel the need to make attacks against Jason? What did he do? He simply posted a blog about the straw poll.

    I guess they are offended because Jason acknowledged a political reality that Paul will never be POTUS. I am not sure why reality is so offensive to these people.

    • Troy La Mana

      The political reality is that if the GOP ignores the people like Obama has they are doomed to the same fate. Dr. Paul is telling the party to wake up and return to its core values of limited government, balanced budgets, strong defense, low taxes and upholding the Constitution. If that is so difficult for the GOP then they are just as lost as the Democrats.

  • Brian H

    Rusty. It is funny at that one still has to explain to these people that Paul will never be in the Whitehouse.

    • Rusty Shackleford

      Your correct,

      This place has turned into the twilite zone

      do do do dooooooooooo

  • Brian H

    The only people hurling insults on this blog are the 1% ers who push for Paul. Like Rusty, I like Ron Paul. I can’t say the same for the majority of his cultish following however. They are simply unserious people.

    They get sooo ANGRY when people point about the obvious, Paul is not a legitimate candidate. That is not an insult, or dig….it is a political fact. The cry because he is not listed as one of the 2012 GOP frontrunners. Of course he is not. Any serious person understands that reality.

    Troy. The GOP has in fact been hearing Paul’s message. His message is strong, his following, however, is not. For the Paul fellow travelers to, once again, prove to be oblivious to political reality is laughable. Do they want us all to play along and pretend that we think Paul to be a viable 2012 contender?

    Please, Pauliites! Please go hurry up and start your new political party. The sooner you do that the sooner you can go the way of the Green, Libertarian, Reform, Labor, Constitution, etc. etc.

    • Troy La Mana

      If he has such a weak message why has his Fed Audit bill passed the House and up before the Senate?

      The only reason why he isn’t a viable candidate is because people like you refuse to accept that he is in fact a viable candidate. I think you underestimate his base. The more people get fed up with Obama the more they listen to candidates like Paul. They are sick and tired of getting the same result no matter which side they vote for. Ask the junior Senator from Massachusetts how listening to the public worked for him.

    • Promise Kept

      “I like Ron Paul. I can’t say the same for the majority of his cultish following however. They are simply unserious people.

      They get sooo ANGRY when people point about the obvious, Paul is not a legitimate candidate. That is not an insult, or dig….it is a political fact. The cry because he is not listed as one of the 2012 GOP frontrunners. Of course he is not. Any serious person understands that reality.”

      Brian, thank you for your candid remarks. I was waiting for Jason to speak up, but I guess you’ll have to do till then. First of all, “Unserious”, is not a word, but I’ll do my best to explore how it might apply to me, even though the word has no objective definition, unseriously.

      Have I ever come across in any of my posts as being, ” sooo ANGRY when people point about the obvious, Paul is not a legitimate candidate.” ?

      No, I didn’t think so either.

      The subject of this thread is, “Ron Paul wins CPAC straw poll”, and every single person reading any of my replies above knows that I have tried to stay on point, concisely answering or questioning the content of what I am replying to.

      The candidacy issue has never come up in any of my posts above, and was only mentioned as an aside in the thread Jason posted.

      The real question Jason wanted to explore was, “Why did Ron Paul, a guy who has never and will never have a chance of actually being elected, win this thing?”

      My replies could be summed up, to the contrary as; How did so many “electable” neo-cons/ “tea-o-cons” utterly fail to rally ANY serious political favor amidst such an astute crowd of self-described CONSERVATIVES? Especially when Dr. Paul is currently running for nothing but the reelection to his congressional seat.

      Brian, your weak point are well taken, but you haven’t answered Jasons’ question or my replies either for that matter.

      When you write, “I am a neocon. I am not an America First isolationist.”, you and I agree perfectly.

      I wrote, “A neo-con can sound well-intentioned, but more often hold a literal oath of office fidelity to the Supreme Law of the Land as an out-dated relic of a bygone era.” What the U.S.Constitution describes as a legitimate boundary.

  • Whodat

    Merry Christmas, everybody. Fruitcakes all around.

    • Andrew Long


    • Cordeiro

      Amen, Whodat.

  • Rusty Shackleford

    OK I can’t stands it no more.

    I like Ron Paul, Ron Paul is my congressman here in Texas, I’ve voted for Ron Paul for congress because he and I see some things the same way and his wife sends out a mighty fine recipe book around every election. The crab cakes are to die for.

    BUT, you don’t want Ron Paul in the White House, he does more good in the house. One reason that Paul didn’t run for K.B. Hutchinson’s seat for Senate is he wouldn’t win. He won’t “bring home the pork” for Texas.

    So, let’s keep him in Galveston/Brazoria county doing what he does best, rail against the machine and everyone who is in the pork business.

    • Brian H

      1 Straw vote for the Ron Paul crabcakes!

      That should keep his cult happy for about 5 mins.

  • Boru

    No worries. I know the score about the owners of this site: sell-outs.

    I haven’t been here in a year or so…and won’t return for quite some time…if ever.

    • Promise Kept

      Boru, you’ve echoed my points eloquently, even without orchestration between us.

      If Democrats are as weak in the publics’ favor as the polls say they are, and Republicans, in general, don’t fair much better on average, then WHY should we listen to ANYTHING that neo-CONs offer about anything, if they do not have the Constitutional authority to do so, and don’t care that God and all of us are watching and remembering their oaths?!

      I would hope for better things of Jason, only because he holds the highest responsibility for what is posted on his property, but if he will not enter into this here on his own site, amongst his friends, then I have to agree that hanging out here is a waste of Liberty-saving time.

  • Boru


    Romney’s article:

    Ron Paul’s article:

    Correction: The poll wasn’t necessarily on Feb 20…it was somewhere between Feb 18 to Feb 20. But it is obviously recent and isn’t some online poll…it is significant news.

    BTW: This straw poll had about 2,395 voters. To put that in perspective, the most publicized straw poll is, debatably, the Ames Straw Poll which, in 2007, had 14,302 voters. But Ames happens just as the presidential nomination election is really heating up. So this turnout is pretty telling.

    Last year (in fact, the last three years up to 2010), Romney won. However, there were less voters. So this poll is actually more accurate a portrayal of opinions of CPAC’s membership.

    On the other hand (to be fair), this reflects only CPAC’s membership, not mainstream US citizens.

  • Boru

    OMG!!! Just look at the rhetorical (persuasive) differences between how NewsMax described Romsey’s winning the CPAC straw poll in 2009 and Paul’s win this year!

    When Romney wins CPAC in 2009: “For the third year in a row, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has won the Conservative Political Action Conference presidential straw poll.”

    When Paul wins CPAC in 2010: “Rep. Ron Paul won the most support for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination in an unofficial straw poll of conservative activists attending an annual conference.

    Note the words “unofficial” and “activists” in Paul’s win description!

    Further on Paul’s report “Paul spoke at the conference along with potential presidential candidates former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota.” They make it seem that Paul isn’t a potential presidential candidate! And described Paul voters as “a segment of voters frustrated with Washington”…not mainstream Republican voters.

    The report about Romney is about three times as long as the report on Paul. The Romney report has paragraphs of all the so-called great things that Romney has done. Paul gets a half sentence that starts off with a skew: “A libertarian from Texas who has railed against spending and the Federal Reserve…”

    The Romney report summaries the CPAC straw poll victory as “In sounding very much like a presidential candidate in 2012…”

    For Paul the summary of the straw poll was “Fewer than a quarter of the 10,000 attendees participated in the balloting, an unscientific sampling that only offers bragging rights.”

    This is a great example of how the fake conservative propagandists use rhetorical bias.

    BTW: The poll was held yesterday…already, the link on CPAC, FoxNews, and NewsMax is nearly buried and will likely disappear early in the week.

  • Troy La Mana

    I knew the wagons would be circled as soon as the results were read and I was right. The CPAC people were upset at the results and made sure the press could hear the boos from the crowd. The press then went into total Paul rejection mode.

    The GOP will never accept Ron Paul and his message. That proves, to me, that the GOP will never be the party of Reagan again.

    I know Chuck Muth is against Nevada forming a Tea Party party but I think it’s the next phase of America taking its country back.

    I said after the election that while I don’t think Ron Paul would run again he might pave the way for a successor like Goldwater did for Reagan. It took 12 years the last time. It looks like it will only be 4 years this time so Ron Paul might just be able to win after all. (If the MSM will cover it)

  • Boru

    Before this site launches another kill Ron Paul campaign they should consider that this site has been limping along for a good while until the CPAC Straw Poll…all due to Ron Paul.

    • Promise Kept

      Boru, no need to worry about any campaign launched from this site having much significance.

      They won’t even acknowledge you when you quote them and ask them respectful questions.

  • Boru

    “not a single entry predicted the Ron Paul victory”

    that’s because you jack@sses made it clear that Ron Paul supporters are unwelcome here

    for example, “Why did Ron Paul, a guy who has never and will never have a chance of actually being elected, win this thing?”


    • Brian H

      It is not an insult to point a political reality. Saying that Paul has never, or will ever, been a legit candidate for POTUS is not an attack, it is a statement of fact.

      You people take honest political observations as personal insults. The same conspiracies that lead you people to the 9/11 Truther, Birther conspiracies is part of the same mental make-up that leads you to believe in conspiracy plots on this website.

    • Brian H

      There is NO Ron Paul campaign to kill!!!


      You people make me laugh.

  • Alaina

    Actually, I sat next to 2 Campaign for Liberty people yesterday afternoon. Both of them said they support Paul, but really liked Pence and would have voted for him had they heard him speak before they voted.

    I’m not knocking CFL. I don’t agree with their pick, but they did a tremendous job of organizing. A lot of people showed up for them and as a result, Paul. I counted the flyers that I had laying around my hotel room and had 26 just from them on Friday and Saturday. I wish I had counted the ones from Wednesday night and Thursday, but I threw them away Friday morning. I think the other candidates have a lot to learn from Paul and CFL in terms of organizing and energizing at the grassroots level.

    Pence and Rubio were the big hits this weekend. They were the ones everyone was talking about. Rubio won’t run in 2012, but Pence might. It would be nice to finally have a candidate that I could get excited about.

    Rob – Do me a favor and look up the definition of neocon.

    • Brian H

      Alaina. “Neocon” and the “military industrial complex” are part of the parroted rhetoric that the flock so easily adopt.

      • Alaina

        I know what neo-con is… I read Rob’s comment as calling you and neo-con and, correct me if I’m wrong, you’re not.

    • Promise Kept

      Alaina, neo- means new, con- is short for conservative, or one convicted of criminal behavior, sometimes used interchangeably when connected with neo.

      There is a third “con”, as in confidence, often connected with “man”, but it is not a sexist term. Women are just as capable of conning people of good will to trust in their deceptions.

      A neo-con can sound well-intentioned, but more often hold a literal oath of office fidelity to the Supreme Law of the Land as an out-dated relic of a bygone era.

      • Brian H


        The term “Neocon” refers to a neo-conservative.

        In a modern day political definition that refers to a person that believes in American exceptionalism and supports the idea that the USA should use its power, wealth, and influence on world events and societies.

        Yes. I do support that. I am a neocon. I am not an America First isolationist. I believe that when it is in our best interest the USA should use its status to spread democracy, capitalism, and freedom.

        • Troy La Mana

          I don’t believe in the NeoCon message.

          American exceptionalism – Yes

          USA should use its power, wealth, and influence on world events and societies – Police of the World? No. Telling other countries how to run their lives? No.

          America First isolationist? – No, but you have to declare war first as stated in the Constitution. This hasn’t been done since WWII.

          I believe that the USA should look inward and fix the problems it has or else there won’t be any status worth a Peso and we will no longer have any shade of freedom.

  • Rob

    Good to see Paul’s got all of the neocons flipping out again :) Brings back good memories. Sounds like it ruined Brian’s day.

    BTW, Lol at the guy who said Campaign for Liberty people would change their vote to Mike Pence. No basis in reality.

  • Alaina

    Don’t put too much thought into this one. Paul brought in a ton of people from Campaign for Liberty and their goal was to vote in the straw poll… all supporters of Paul. They wouldn’t have been there if he wasn’t scheduled to speak. Remember how he won all those polls right after the debates? Same thing. In addition, about half of the people there were students and that’s his demographic.

    The good news (and a little shocking news) is that most people I spoke to, including the Campaign for Liberty people, said that they would change their vote to Mike Pence after hearing him speak. I spoke to roughly 40 people and only a couple said they wouldn’t change their vote.

    The problem with that straw poll is that voting wraps up at 1:00 on Friday so most people haven’t given their speech yet and many people vote early on Thursday. I voted early on Thursday morning for Pawlenty, but would have changed my vote to Pence had I heard him speak before I voted.

    • Brian H

      The Ron Paul fellow-travelers get so excited when they successfully pull off one of their schemes to make Ron Paul appear to be more legit than what he clearly is…….NOT!

      They remind me of Wanyne and Garth (Wayne’s World)giggling after asking someone “assfincter says what?”

      Great Job, Paulites! I hope your celebration of bong hits and LOST reruns got you back home safely.

      Party on!

    • Promise Kept

      Nice try Alaina, but when you say, “Paul brought in a ton of people from Campaign for Liberty”, you make it sound like he paid their way and bused them in.

      “And their goal was to vote in the straw poll… all supporters of Paul.” If there had been any other candidates friendly to Campaign for Liberty principles, I would have expected them to fair well among them also.

      I took time to watch Mike Pences’ speech, and while it was well delivered, I seriously doubt any C4L people would have fallen for it, much less changed their vote.

      Among the “roughly 40 people” you cite as wishing to change their vote to Pence, do you believe that any of them even care that the single digit numbers among all but one in this neo-con pack, shows a serious lack of political traction in this horse race?

      No, I didn’t think so either.

    • Andrew Long

      Never heard/saw his CPAC speech but…I could vote for Pence in 2012.

  • Brian H

    I am sure the PD leadership is quickly scrambling to now move Paul atop the 2012 candidates list.

    • Promise Kept

      No, Brian, they have already proven that they would never do that. Even if Mitt had come in at single digit approval, I would expect no less loyalty from what I’ve read over the years to all things anti-Paul.

      I’ve come to expect the crazed conspiracy theories that would quickly dismiss any thoughtful analysis of the scientific breakdown of the straw-poll data, because it failed to even remotely resemble your in-house PD expectations.

      I would not be surprised to find a thread that read, “Over 2/3rds of CPAC participants voted against Ron Paul”. While there is statistical truth in that, it wasn’t the question that they answered.

    • Troy La Mana

      I don’t know about on top of the list but this poll should at least get Ron Paul ON the list.

      • Andrew Long

        I agree Troy.

    • David Kaiser, Editor

      The guy won one poll, and is 74 years old.


      • Troy La Mana

        Same attitude in 1980 would have taken Reagan off the list.

        • David Kaiser, Editor

          Except that Reagan was 68 when he ran in 1980, and was the acknowledged front-runner and leader of the Conservative movement.

          Paul is hardly considered a front-runner, and despite his win at CPAC, I doubt many would call him the leader of the Conservative movement, and would be 76 in 2012 if he were to run.

          Troy, please at least acknowledge these are two entirely different scenarios?

  • Troy La Mana

    If you look in the archives you’ll see that I posted an article explaining that Ron Paul should have won the Nevada at the 2008 Convention except the state GOP shut down the state convention to stop him.

    I don’t think it was an isolated incident either.
    I’m convinced that Ron Paul had far more support then the RNC was willing to admit.

    • Brian H

      What was the excuse in the other 49?

      • Troy La Mana

        We will never know the full story but I do know about Nevada. If it happened here, it could have happened in other states as well.

        • Brian H

          Troy. Do you honestly believe that Paul did not become POTUS because of the MSM?


          • Troy La Mana

            Nobody wins without the press at least giving you a fair shake.

  • Neil Braithwaite

    There’s nothing in the street
    Looks any different to me
    And the slogans are out-phased, by-the-bye
    And the parting on the left
    Is now parting on the right
    And their beards have all grown longer overnight

    I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
    Take a bow for the new revolution
    Smile and grin at the change all around
    Pick up my guitar and play
    Just like yesterday
    Then I’ll get on my knees and pray
    We don’t get fooled again

    • Boru

      Who wrote that.

      • David Kaiser, Editor


        • Promise Kept

          The Whos’ on first routine, eh

  • Andrew Long

    I for one am shocked that Ronny won the poll. Mad props. If Romney, Huckabee, or anyone else won their respective supporters/quasi-campaigns would be quick to claim that this establishes them as the frontrunner for 2012. While I wouldn’t go that far, I’m certainly willing to give credit where credit is due. Paul is the only candidate who ran any kind of operation on the ground and it paid off. No real bearings on the 2012 election however…

    • Promise Kept

      Thank you for your honest “shock”, but would you please help me understand what your, ” Mad props” quote was about?

      “Paul is the only candidate who ran any kind of operation on the ground and it paid off.”

      Here’s my best reply, “The People who recognize Ron Pauls’ example and message as their own, far out-weigh the paid-political-props, and the multi-media pundits are forced to take notice.”

    • wade2go

      None of the leading GOP candidates stand a chance in the 2012 general election. I say give Paul a chance. People complained about MCcain, but the campaign would not have been as close as it was with any of the others

    • wade2go

      None of the leading GOP candidates stand a chance in the 2012 general election. I say give Paul a chance. People complained about MCcain, but the campaign would not have been as close as it was with any of the others

  • Gary Russell

    What in the wide, wide world of sports were all those folks thinking?

  • Promise Kept

    Hey folks, Been a long time, eh?

    Jason, you asked, “Why did Ron Paul, a guy who has never and will never have a chance of actually being elected, win this thing?”

    To that I will let the CPAC straw-poll speak for itself.

    Why would a field of nine candidates, excluding Mitt, have a total percentage just two above what Ron Paul got all by himself?

    How did it happen that so many in this participants-only, straw-poll choose Ron Paul by two percent more than Romney and Palin COMBINED!

    How did you miss it by that much?

    I don’t know how to break this to you, but freedom is still popular, especially among this events’ youthful demographic, who doing more than praying that “they won’t get fooled again”.

  • Clint

    Certainly a surprise… was he close in past years?

  • Brian H

    Seriously? The CPAC delegation has just lost ALL credibility.

    I can appreciate the role Ron Paul plays in holding the party accountable to its limited government ideas, but, to say the man should be the next POTUS. WOW!

    How can conservatives expect to be taken seriously when they do things like this?

    Thats like Philly fans making the Philly Fanatic the MVP. C’mon, conservatives……at least pretend like you are serious people.

    • Brian H

      This is what the Paul people did during the campaign. They flooded the internet and phone polls after every Paul debate.

      …and I thought Obama had a cult like following.

      What is disappointing is that I was actually very interested in seeing who the top candidates were going to be. I guess we will have to keep wondering….

      Ron Paul 2012…or 2016….or 2020…2024

      Maybe we can put Paul into cryogenics so he can be thawed out to save the world from some future disaster.

  • Troy La Mana

    I am shocked, shocked I say.

    I would never in a millions years think that they would think of actually voting for a Constitutionalist.

    • Brian H

      Me either……….

      I was hopeful for 2010 and 2012 but this makes me very nervous.

      • Troy La Mana

        Nervous? It makes me ecstatic!