Jump to content






Photo

Highly questionable CPAC2012 straw poll results

CPAC straw poll

  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 Jerry Biggers

Jerry Biggers

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,366 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland
  • Interests:Interested in Objectivism and libertarianism since the mid-1960's.; Other philosophy, science, history, Siamese (and other) cats. .

Posted 13 February 2012 - 08:05 PM

Andrew Napolitano and others have questioned the results of the CPAC2012 straw poll. To the embarrassment of the strictly traditionalist conservative leadership of CPAC and ACU, RON PAUL had won the last two annual CPAC straw polls. They were determined to make sure that that did not happen again.

Ron Paul was NOT invited to speak at this year's CPAC (although his son, Sen. Rand Paul, did have a speaker's slot). The straw poll balloting was changed from paper to electronic, perhaps making it easier to, err, "manipulate" to fit the leaderships desires. Surprise! ROMNEY won, although the conservative rank-and-file has not been impressed with Romney's conservative credentials, which is why he never has been able to get higher then the thirtieth percentiles.

Not content to rely just on the straw poll, the CPAC leadership also decided to hedge their bets by conducting some sort of phone poll to "leading conservatives" (??) which, (surprise!) had results in line with politically correct traditionalist hopes, i.e. ROMNEY

#2 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 16,413 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 13 February 2012 - 08:15 PM

Jerry:

I hate to make this point, but the Romney folks did what the Paul folks did the last two (2) years. They bought a ton of tickets and then "packed the house."

CPAC is a great organization, but their straw poll, as most of those types of straw polls, are totally subject to being rigged by ticket buying.

I think Romney is a despicable political creature. One of his major consultants explained that Romney had always been pro-life and had only "faked" being pro death choice" to gain the confidence of the Massachusetts electorate.

Well now, so, basically he is a bottom feeding slug who will put on any disguise to get elected. Hmmm, boy, now I surely trust him to repeal
Romneycare, er, Obamacare as soon as he gets into office.

Why he will do it faster than you can say Jackie Robinson! What a piece of garbage.

Adam.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

#3 BaalChatzaf

BaalChatzaf

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 11,669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Currently residing in New Jersey, the Bad-a-Bing State.
  • Interests:mathematics, physics, alternative energy sources.

    I am also involved in preparing recorded books for blind and dyslexic folks.

Posted 13 February 2012 - 08:25 PM


Well now, so, basically he is a bottom feeding slug who will put on any disguise to get elected. Hmmm, boy, now I surely trust him to repeal
Romneycare, er, Obamacare as soon as he gets into office.

Why he will do it faster than you can say Jackie Robinson! What a piece of garbage.

Adam.


The forthcoming election looks like the Battle of the Bottom Feeders. Maybe I will sit this one out, also. I did not cast a vote for President in the 2008 election because the alternatives were so dreadful.

Ba'al Chatzaf
אויב מיין באָבע האט בייצים זי וואָלט זיין מיין זיידע

#4 Jerry Biggers

Jerry Biggers

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,366 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland
  • Interests:Interested in Objectivism and libertarianism since the mid-1960's.; Other philosophy, science, history, Siamese (and other) cats. .

Posted 13 February 2012 - 08:46 PM

Rick Santorum has made that same claim (that Ron Paul and now Romney "bought" the straw polls by busing-in supporters to attend the CPAC conference) in some media interviews over the weekend. However, I have not heard that assertion before, and I find it unlikely in Paul's case, but I guess its possible.

However, CPAC is literally owned by its founder, the American Conservative Union (ACU), an "on-paper" organization of ageing YAF alumni. The chance that CPAC/ACU would allow an impartial re-count is,...ZERO.

George Soros, of all people, recently pointed-out in some media interviews, that he saw little difference in political policies and likely implemented political agendas between Romney and the guy he (Soros) helped to elect, Obama.

#5 Peter Taylor

Peter Taylor

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 2,415 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Land of Sky Blue Water

Posted 14 February 2012 - 12:27 PM

I think Mitt did stack the deck. Rick Santorum admitted that was legal and he hinted he would have done the same if he had the where – with – all to do the same. Jerry, what planet do you inhabit? Romney and Santorum are relatively close politically, and might drift with the status quo if they have the chance, but Obama is an Activist for Evil. Black Liberation Theology, Saul Lewinsky, and the other Terrorist / Progressives are not the hero’s of Mitt or Rick. Obama wants to communize the Constitution. Your argument to not vote in the general election is emotional and not rational. Quoting George Soros as your source proves . . . what does that prove? Soros is right in this case? Soros is an insider? Soros is smart?

No. Soros is traitorous, Elsworth Toohey scum who uses his clout for evil. Obama is counting on the Dumb Masses to elect him again. You want to join them? Do nothing at the risk of your mortal soul.
Peter Taylor
Semper cogitans fidele,
Independent Objectivist,
Peter Taylor

#6 BaalChatzaf

BaalChatzaf

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 11,669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Currently residing in New Jersey, the Bad-a-Bing State.
  • Interests:mathematics, physics, alternative energy sources.

    I am also involved in preparing recorded books for blind and dyslexic folks.

Posted 14 February 2012 - 01:59 PM

I think Mitt did stack the deck. Rick Santorum admitted that was legal and he hinted he would have done the same if he had the where – with – all to do the same. Jerry, what planet do you inhabit? Romney and Santorum are relatively close politically, and might drift with the status quo if they have the chance, but Obama is an Activist for Evil. Black Liberation Theology, Saul Lewinsky, and the other Terrorist / Progressives are not the hero’s of Mitt or Rick. Obama wants to communize the Constitution. Your argument to not vote in the general election is emotional and not rational. Quoting George Soros as your source proves . . . what does that prove? Soros is right in this case? Soros is an insider? Soros is smart?

No. Soros is traitorous, Elsworth Toohey scum who uses his clout for evil. Obama is counting on the Dumb Masses to elect him again. You want to join them? Do nothing at the risk of your mortal soul.
Peter Taylor


Saul Alinsky.
אויב מיין באָבע האט בייצים זי וואָלט זיין מיין זיידע

#7 Michael Stuart Kelly

Michael Stuart Kelly

    $$$$$$

  • Root Admin
  • 20,728 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 February 2012 - 04:54 PM

Soros is traitorous, Elsworth Toohey scum who uses his clout for evil.

Peter,

I think everyone agrees with this.

That being the case, when Soros sings Romney's praises because he sees little difference between Romney and Obama, isn't that something worth looking at?

What are the possibilities?

1. He is lying in order to get Republicans turned off to Romney, imagining they will be scared by his endorsement and serve up a weaker candidate (in his view) to run against Obama.

2. He is calling it as he sees it and does not understand the difference between socialism and free markets.

3. He is calling it as he sees it from a banking perspective and knows Romney would keep the good times flowing for international bankers, even if it means the country falling apart for the "greater good."

I go with No. 3.

I think Soros loves the game of saying this kind of stuff in public and nobody getting it. Just like he did when he said he tried playing God in meddling in countries and got addicted to it

Michael

Know thyself...


#8 Peter Taylor

Peter Taylor

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 2,415 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Land of Sky Blue Water

Posted 14 February 2012 - 06:17 PM

Thanks Ba’al! Saul Alinsky, not Saul Lewinski as in Monica Lewisnski.

Michael wrote, sort of supporting Jerry’s comments about Soros:
3. He is calling it as he sees it from a banking perspective and knows Romney would keep the good times flowing for international bankers, even if it means the country falling apart for the "greater good.". . . I think Soros loves the game of saying this kind of stuff in public and nobody getting it . . . .
end quote

OK. If that is what Jerry Biggers was alluding to, I apologize to both of you. Dumb Asses are found in the Dumb Masses, Dumb Asses are found in the Dumb Masses, Dumb Asses are found in the Dumb Masses and not in Objectivist classes.

I will go even further in the bad comparison game. There is a world of difference between John McCain and Barrack Obama too, as much as I dislike John McCain’s policies of cap and trade, man made global warming, limits on contributions to campaigns, etc. His shortcomings do not place him in the same league as Obama, the American Apologist in Chief, The European Socialist in Chief, The Appeaser in Chief, the Subvert-or of the Constitution in Chief, and The Bankrupt-or in Chief.

Piekoff’s grand strategy of keeping the Legislature and the Presidency in the hands of two different parties so they will stalemate each other, is interesting theory, and SEEMS to work, but I would not bet the George Soros Bank on it.

Would Romney keep the good times flowing for international bankers, even if it means the country falling apart for the "greater good," as Michael suggests? Mormons are prudent and conservative, almost 1950’s socially and economically, so if Mitt caused riots, splinter group militias, marches, bread lines, so a few of the ELITE can get a bit more . . . Well, that is a bit much. Joseph Smith would send the angel Maroni down to earth to cut off his balls. I heard that Mitt has a hundred Million in a trust fund for his kids. I can see him putting that into banks in the Caymans if he thinks things will fall apart under Obama, which they just might. I would.

Ah, The grand conspiracy theories about Truthers and Birthers, and Bankers. UFO’s, Kennedy, and Sovereign Citizens. The Tri Lateral Commission, the Masons, Yale’s Skull and Bones Society, (though not the Whiffenpoofs. I distrust those sweet sounding bastards.) Christopher Hitchens, RIP, called conspiracy theories the 'exhaust fumes of democracy.'
Peter Taylor
Semper cogitans fidele,
Independent Objectivist,
Peter Taylor

#9 Peter Taylor

Peter Taylor

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 2,415 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Land of Sky Blue Water

Posted 15 February 2012 - 10:21 AM



Michael linked this once, I believe. Politics 101. Mitt is not linked to Soros.
Peter
Semper cogitans fidele,
Independent Objectivist,
Peter Taylor

#10 Jerry Biggers

Jerry Biggers

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,366 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland
  • Interests:Interested in Objectivism and libertarianism since the mid-1960's.; Other philosophy, science, history, Siamese (and other) cats. .

Posted 15 February 2012 - 11:40 AM

I think Mitt did stack the deck. Rick Santorum admitted that was legal and he hinted he would have done the same if he had the where – with – all to do the same. Jerry, what planet do you inhabit? Romney and Santorum are relatively close politically, and might drift with the status quo if they have the chance, but Obama is an Activist for Evil. Black Liberation Theology, Saul Lewinsky, and the other Terrorist / Progressives are not the hero’s of Mitt or Rick. Obama wants to communize the Constitution. Your argument to not vote in the general election is emotional and not rational. Quoting George Soros as your source proves . . . what does that prove? Soros is right in this case? Soros is an insider? Soros is smart?

No. Soros is traitorous, Elsworth Toohey scum who uses his clout for evil. Obama is counting on the Dumb Masses to elect him again. You want to join them? Do nothing at the risk of your mortal soul.
Peter Taylor


"Goll-LEE!!!" (to quote the legendary Gomer Pyle) :huh: , I'm not sure what I said (or what you think I said) that brought on that response.
But, rather than elaborating on what I thought I said, I'll try to respond to your points:

1) Rick Santorum, side-stepping his own accusation that Romney stacked the CPAC straw poll, by adding that he would have done the same thing if he had had Romney's resources, is simply pointing-out that he and Romney hold the same "all's fair in love and politics"-style of relativistic ethics. Apparently, he thinks that makes it all right. In which case, he has no justifiable complaint, accord to his own ethics (if you can call it that.).

2) I made no reference tocomparing Santorum and Romney to Obama, but I hope it does not surprise you that I do not approve of the policies of any of them. They are all just slightly repackaged versions of authoritarian collectivism.

3) Earth. On the loose so far, but if the Obamanation decides to put into practice some of the more Orwellian actions that are part of the National Defense Re-authorization Act (and of which McCain was one of the sponsors!), we may find ourselves debating these points in a "re-education camp," courtesy of the government.

4) I didn't say much about Romney or Santorum, but I will here: Romney is a repackaged George Bush (both of them) and will say or do anything if he thinks it will help him get the nomination and get elected. Judging by his performance in the last sixteen or so debates (and even worse, his pathetic plea for support that he gave at CPAC), Obama will clobber him in a debate.
Santorum, while he is now spouting pseudo-capitalist conservative rhetoric to get the support of more conservatives, has a record of supporting many government-expanding projects, and has made it clear in his recent book, "It takes a family," that he is no supporter of libertarian principles and even denies the validity of individualism. He thinks personal autonomy is wrong and that all that is needed to "save" this country is a re-emphasis on Faith (with a capital F), "Family values," (as defined by Santorum and the Religious Right) holding a job, and being married (No, really!). Based on his stated values, and not some of his current expedient utterances, if he attempts to put his true beliefs in practice, he will, at minimum, distort or destroy any connection between conservatism and individual liberty. Philosophically, that may seem desirable, but I do not want the country destroyed in the process

4) As for George Soros, I think we all know of his role in financing "liberal/progressive" causes. He is also quite vocal in his own opinions. I quoted Soros to point-out that he thinks Romney would not have that much differance in policies and practice from Obama, based on Romney's past actions as Governor of Massachusetts. No, I don't know Soros' motivations in making that statement, nor do I care. On the comparison of Romney to Obama, I think he is right (if on no other matter).

5) Huh? (or, to be more in-vougue, wtf ?). You are accusing me of making statements that I did not say or imply. I did not say we should not vote. Although a good argument could (and has been) made for precisely that. Unfortunately, I see no reason to believe anything that Romney says that contradicts what he has actually done in practice. In Santorum's case, the same applies. As of course it does with the Obamanation. Politically speaking the Presidential choices in the Republican and Democrat parties is grim. Possibly disastrous.

6) So, I am not sure just what I should do to "save my mortal soul." Your choice is....?.

#11 Peter Taylor

Peter Taylor

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 2,415 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Land of Sky Blue Water

Posted 15 February 2012 - 03:32 PM

Jerry Biggers wrote:
So, I am not sure just what I should do to "save my mortal soul." Your choice is....?.
end quote

You successfully answered my protests which guarantees you a front row seat at the first hander’s convention. I went back and looked but you did not explicitly say you would not vote in the upcoming election. You just noted that Obama, Romney, and Santorum were three for whom you might not vote. Which leaves the Prohibition Party, The Green Party, The Communists, the Socialist Workers Party, and the Whigs. Am I leaving one out? Starts with an “L.”

Mitt’s ambition may lead to pandering for votes, and darn it, those pesky books need to be explained. Santorum’s "It takes a family," is one that could haunt him. He wants to purge libertarianism from the Republican Party.

But academically consider that video of the political spectrum. From monarchy and totalitarianism, to oligarchic rule, to middle of the road, to free market capitalism, to anarchy (disregarding the contradiction that free range, accidental anarchy always leads to something, and planned anarchy has never been planned, let alone tried.) Think about our four choices. Put the President and candidates on that scale.

Obama wants to be an oligarchic ruler. He and his liberal elite will steer America to equalization of opportunity, equalization of outcome and wealth, fairness, civic duty or as past dreamers have called it, “The Fourth Reich.”

Paul, Romney, Santorum and Gingrich absolutely promise to be to the right of Obama. Their shortcomings may hinder that promise. A voting middle class which can vote their pocket books AND is increasingly dependent on government may hinder that goal.

The worst of the four in my book is Santorum but even he seems to understand the dilemma and talks about boosting the free market economy so that the middle class is not dependent upon government. (underemployment, food stamps, mortgage relief, SS, Medicare, unemployment insurance, subsidized insurance at the state level, which I actually have because of my preexisting condition of high blood pressure. My Medicare starts June 1st.) Santorum promises that under his Presidency, America will once again become a land of the upwardly mobile. If he is the worst choice of the Republicans he is still head and shoulders over Obama.

In Romney’s favor: he praises Ron Paul! You think Romney would lose a debate to Obama??? What does it come down to? Who anticipates the questions and has the right answers ready? Who is a good orator and has those helpful “sound bites” ready? Who is the best looking?

Two worrisome questions I have are: Who can get their best moments repeated by the news? And, who does the press think won the debate? We now have Fox and Talk Radio to present the Rational Side. Someone on OL will be sure to report “The Far Side.” Just kidding.

The trick is to get the voters to watch the debate and then make their own judgment about who best represents American values. If the viewer - ship is huge, then it comes down to who is the smartest.
Peter Taylor
Semper cogitans fidele,
Independent Objectivist,
Peter Taylor

#12 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 16,413 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 15 February 2012 - 03:36 PM

http://www.thegreenp...andidates.phtml

2012 Presidential hopefuls grouped by party...lots of choices.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users