Yes, the annual CPAC straw poll is in. CPAC, of course, is the Conservative Political Action Conference, and each year they poll the attendees to get a sense of who they think will be the Republican nominee in the next presidential election. Various Republican politicos, past and present, along with lots of other voices, give speeches and press the flesh in the hallways. Of the roughly 10,000 attendees, 2,935 of them voted for whom they felt should be nominated for the 2012 election.
Ron Paul lapped the field with 31% of the vote!! And the crowd cheered!!! [Oops, okay, they didn't cheer. In fact, they booed quite loud.]
Next up was Mitt Romney, the winner 3 times running, with 22%
Followed by:
Sarah Palin - 7%
Tim Pawlenty - 6%
Mike Pence - 5%
Newt Gingrich - 4%
Mike Huckabee - 4%
So what does this all mean? In short, not much. Ah, but then again, maybe a lot.
First off, at 74 years old (and for lots of other reasons), Ron Paul isn't ever going to be nominated by the Republicans for president. Neither is Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Mike Pence, or Mike Huckabee (sorry Huck). Gingrich just likes the money he makes from playing the game. Palin is in it for the money too, though I suspect that she might have it in the back of her mind that she could get nominated under the Tea Party banner. That isn't very likely, especially since the Tea Party is just the extreme right wing of the already right wing Republican party and Palin herself (and others) have said the Tea Party should simply be absorbed by the Republicans (which might - and should - shock those honest tea party members who remember that it was the Republicans who got us into this mess in the first place).
Which leaves Romney, Pawlenty, and perhaps several players to be named later.
Pawlenty is a bit of a wild card. He is still building his national name recognition, and being from Minnesota may not be helpful (can we say Jesse Ventura, Michele Bachmann, and Al Franken?). Still, we'll see.
Mitt Romney is by far the only one in the current field that could possibly get enough votes to win an election. His strength is the economy and if the economy still is in the tank, he has a shot. But he also has a few things going against him. First, he's Mormon. Okay, that won't be a problem for most people but it will for the hard right Republicans. You remember he didn't come close to the nomination in 2008, right? He's also an ex-Governor of Massachusetts, which should help him in the November 2012 vote, but will kill him in the primaries just as it did in 2008. The last factor is the economy. While his economic bona fides leave the rest of the Republicans in the dust, he won't get the chance if the economy has recovered, or if the majority of the public feels like it has recovered or is at least going in the right direction.
Frankly, if the public thinks that the economy hasn't gotten better by 2012 then just about any Republican will get elected. Which is ironic, given when the recession started.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 96
I'm looking at Senator Thune from South Dakota. He's tall, he's handsome, and, best of all, he's white. He's also smart, and has the conservative bona fides all in a row. And no, they're not going to let Scott Brown anywhere near the ticket. He's pro-choice, and neutral on gay marriage.
I agree with you on how Romney will be treated, which is a shame given he is the only one in the bunch listed who actually could be a good president (assuming he reverts back to management instead of conservative gameplayer, which is what he's been doing for a couple of years).
In fact, the issue here is not how Romney would do in the general election (I already suggested that it would not be a significant factor then) but what Romney's fellow Republicans would do. The Republicans, especially the further right wing ones and the ones driven by religious ideology, were the ones who railed against him and his religion in the 2008 primaries, according to current RNC chair Michael Steele and others.
BTW, you seem to presume a lot about what I know about both Catholicism and LDS (and I would thrown in Islam, Buddhism, and Judaism into that mix).
Continuing with the logical lapse. None of that has to do with being a Mormon. Romney already got elected in Massachusetts and they could vote for them again (though based on J.Reid's reaction, and memories of Mike Dukakis, I actually don't think they would). But somehow you're jumping from one situation to a completely different situation countrywide and assuming that it holds. Not even close.
Romney's "Mormon problem" isn't going to be with Independents and Democrats (who tend to be more "liberal" and less concerned that their elected officials are of the "right" religion). Keep in mind that the 2000 VP choice was Jewish. No, the "Mormon problem," if there is one, is going to be with Romney's fellow Republicans. They are the ones, and especially those that are the most motivated at the moment, who are likely to hold it against him. If the people in the South, who are likely to distrust those "Utah Mormon types," rush out to vote for Southerners like Huckabee or far right types like Palin, Romney as a centrist isn't going to have a chance in the primaries. Add in Char's belief that Romney is big business and he's a goner.
BTW, the irony is that if McCain had picked Romney as his VP, when the financial meltdown happened Romney could have saved the election for him. But by picking someone who clearly wasn't capable of answering even simple questions about herself, never mind national and international policy, he revved up the nutty side of the base and drove away the Independents and, well, anyone who thinks.
And don't think Romney is going to go easy on Palin if she runs as a Republican. He is not about to lose out twice, and this will be his last chance.
If things are no better or worse they will look for a more viable candidate. Thune maybe.
Those who took this stage, as commented above, had various motives. The people will know the difference.
When?
Guess it's a choice between hypocrisy or not.
You don't see that as incredibly hypocritical? That they not only voted against it but complained publicly and vocally about how it was destroying America - and then grab all the cash they can get and take credit for bringing it to their districts?
That doesn't seem hypocritical?
Where we needed the money was at NASA, which instead was evicerated. The inspiring Kennedy Space Center has been reformed into a sand lot for rent by the hour. The manned space program has become a system of chits for Russian taxi's. What a great effort to achieve and use our money wisely while expanding our capability.@
That doesn't even make sense.
The point here is that Bachmann and lots of other Republicans all voted against the stimulus, then ranted about how it is evil and socialism and would destroy America, then rushed back home to take credit for something they called evil.
Sorry, that is pure hypocrisy. And your choice to overlook it is no more credible than Palin's hypocrisy to scream about Rahm Emanuel's use of a word in private while making excuses for Rush Limbaugh's repeated and insulting use of the same word in public.
Frankly, it's insulting that you could so easily be so hypocritical.
But using stimulus funds to create projects is different. Besides, all she did was say she supports the project. She stood true to her principles on health care and she was punished by not receiving stimulus, and you would punish her again for supporting a needed project. Sorry, not with you there!
Romeny essentially withdrew from the race, early, when it was quite apparent that McCain's 8 years of waiting in the wings, had the nomination sewn up.
Huckabee was the longest holdout against McCain. And that was not because he was doing any better than Romney or anyone else. Romney withdrew from the race with far more delegates than Huckabee hads at that same time.
And even in the final delegate count, Huckabee wound up only slightly ahead of Romeny desoite staying in the race much longer than Romney.
For all intent and urpose, Romney was the seconf place winner of the nomination.
The G.O.P. has a long history of nominating the next in line. They did it with Ford over Reagan in '76, they did it with Reagan in '76, Bush in '88, Dole in '96, McCain in '08. Next in line is Romney.
But beyond the historical presidence is the game on th ground. Romney's PAC Free and String America PAC, is the most active of all potential nominees. His campaign organization is in place and preparing for the primaries. Both Romney and his PAC have been out there earning the favors of many congresional, and senatorial candidates as well as Governors likeChris Christie, people who in 2012 will be coming out and endorsing Romney for the nomination as a result of Romney's own endorsements and capaigning for them in their elections.
Add to that Romney's leadership as a governor, his unparalled economic proficenecy , bussiness success, organizational ability and ability to articulate the issues and what you have who i9s someone that people can and will believe in, not because of his religion, but because of his respect for religion, his appreciation for state rights and his knowlege in the area of growing the economy, increasing jobs and his desire for a limited an smaller government.
Romeny is seasoned, experienced and trustworthy.
His only real achilles heal in the primaries would be other Republicans trying to connect Romney to the Democrat's attempt for government run healthcare. They will charge that he did the same thing that dems wanted on the national level in his state.
But thius is both innacuarate anda charge that will be turned into his advantage.
Romney's Massachusetts healtcare program was not the same as the proposed federal program, and Romney's own program underwent significant changes after he left office and a new Governor came in.
Additionally, Romney has no problem with a state experimenting and developing the state programs that best suit their needs and as agovernor that is what he did. But as President Romney does believe that it is te federal governments place to ride roughshod over states rights and mandate one federal healthcare program on all the states. he believes that the federal should giv e the sttes the tools they need to experiment and establixh the programs that best fit their unique needs. He believes that as state's experiment, eventualy the very best, proven, porograms will will develop and possibly be adopted by other states.
On religion, Romney's Mormonisim is not the problemn that you think. Several major religious leaders including those among Born Again Christians and catholics, came out with strong statements of respect for the Mormon faith despite any doctrinal religious differences. The Romney campaign even obtained the endorsement of some of the most influential Christian leaders in the nation.
The Mormon issue is not the roadblock you think. If it was, Mitt Romney would not receive the large base of support that he consistntly receives at events like the loose Christian coalition base that comprises such as CPAC. If it was such an impedement, the largely Catholic and even Democrat state ofMassachusetts would never have been a ble to elect Romney Governor. Massachsuetts is far from being Utah and yet he was still elected.
I didn't say he wouldn't. I think he could win it despite being a Mormon.
For all intent and urpose, Romney was the seconf place winner of the nomination.
Agreed, for the reasons you stated. Huckabee was running for a Fox show.
The G.O.P. has a long history of nominating the next in line.
Agreed. The question is, is that a good thing or a bad thing?
Next in line is Romney.
Agreed. And he knows it.
Romeny is seasoned, experienced and trustworthy.
Agree on the first two; it will be up to Republican primary voters to decide on the last one.
The Mormon issue is not the roadblock you think.
From my own point of view I could care less about his religion. But it seems there are a lot of Republicans who do care. Remember it was Massachusetts who elected him Governor. Can you say that the deep South will be so "liberal."
But as I said, if he can get through the biases of his own party he will be a good November candidate, assuming, that is, that the economy is still in the tank. If the economy looks good, Obama has gotten us (more or less) out of Iraq, we get Af-Pak looking better without too many Americans killed, and as a bonus we get bin Laden, then there isn't a Republican on the planet that could beat Obama. In which case Romney may decide not to waste his time. But if the economy is in the dumpster still at that point, then I might just decide to run myself.
Unparalleled economic proficiency, indeed! NOT!!
- Vice President Dick Cheney
Huh! So that is what they call it!
http://www.cpac.org/
Last night I, reluctantly, listened to our (one term) R ex-Governor Mitt Romney, MA, lie and boast and drool over fallacious comments to a standing ovation. Folks believe what they choose to believe. Romney nearly bankrupt MA, like Arnold Schwarzenegger of CA, and another R ex-Governor Weld, MA why they are now boasting on the vote out of MA, it is nebulous, and a fleeting euphoria. Republicans have had their hand in destroying several large States economies, they love their own spin, until they revisit just what their actual "Values" mean to the Nation we shall be rolling a stone up hill, as far as progress is concerned in the country, for decades.
"Values, Republican style"
***Return to the "Original" Constitution ==can you say slavery for Blacks/all minorities, women, child labor etc return to the 1700s is not a pretty picture.
***Support Business endeavors ==I think that is quite clear.
***Return to the "Traditional family and those values ==get the women out of the work force and back to the kitchen and bedroom.
Mitt also mentioned inventors and supporting the millions of inventors who built this country. Difficult if one is denied access to education and resources if you are a woman or minority under his desired change.
Education he said, only the top 3% of their class would be allowed to teach and he would dissolve the Teachers union.
This sounds to me like a future (according to Mitt) is Republican Authoritarian Capitalist societies who are warriors against the World.
It's too early to tell. As Anthony said, the Republicans tend to nominate the "next white guy in line" and Romney is clearly that guy. And he clearly wants it, and can afford it, both with his own money and his ability to raise money.
Still, it's a moot point if the economy looks good.
And by doing so they push more American jobs overseas and give China a leg up on developing innovative new technologies.
Amazing how one party can work so hard to keep America from excelling, and then somehow get rewarded for it.
That line of thinking is so far off the mark!
PROOF please!
There are numerous articles available on this, but thought u might like
NY Times.
What is it about "MIGHT" which gives you the impression of an absolute? I was listening to that discussion and there was no agreement settled upon.
Your perception is flawed! "You mean you want the Dems who take Texas land, build a wind farm with 300 texas workers and then farm out the actual turbines to 2,000 Chinese?" That is NOT what is at steak! Reading with comprehension is key!
Thanks for the link, you have no clue as to which Newspaper I would like, do not e-mail me ever again.
You asked for a source. Here's another
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/columnists/jlanders/stories/DN-landers_17bus.1.ART0.State.Edition1.3f095e8.html
Democrats, with union support, included a "Buy America" provision in the stimulus bill. This hasn't proved to be an obstacle to moving ahead with wind projects that rely on foreign-made turbines.
I thought you really wanted the info, sorry if I offended you.
Nothing is etched in stone. That was my point along with your obvious disdain over the possibility that our Nation becomes productive again, via Chinese workers. You do realize that they make most of what you buy at Walmart and then there was the Railroad, back in the day! Chinese workers!
Humph!
Nobody is even talking about sensible reform of the banking system. Why do you think that is? Let's let them keep doing it, lets just tax it. Whoaaa, what a mindset. And now with commercial real estate cycling it's loans, almost all are either owner finance or balloon, another very bad round coming as soon as rates rise. Why do you think the banks are hanging on, and not lending now? Once the rates rise, they will lend at the inflated rates. (fueling more inflation)
We have to find answers for health care (one I would suggest is kill those long patent laws for new drugs.) I also think the pharma's should have to produce in the US, at least until the patent expires.
I actually favor mandating all food processing for our tables be done here. The melamine found in pet foods is no doubt entering the adult food chain. I have this theory that it is the result of using rice as a thickener for gravy. All the toxic pet foods were gravy brands. Sure would be cheaper to get rice, if you didn't grow a lot of flour, huh? Heard recently China buying large segments of Africa to farm wheat errrrrrrr maybe the pets helped figure it out? Poor dead pets.
Need people in government who care more about their country than their own pocketbook. They do exist. Ask Dan Burton who the best candidate is, or my Congressman, Bill Posey. They will suggest who knows what really needs to be done.
A lot of the needed change is undoing what has been done wrong. Too many cooks spoil the broth. Roll back government mandates. Let States handle their own education. Let schools keep common sense textbooks more than one year, and make the publishers compete for which ones are used, instead of creating a monopoly and making repurchase necessary every single year.
Get rid of government unions that create sitting rooms for teachers so bad you cannot let them near children, but pay them to sit for up to 7 years it takes to fire them because of union contracts. What kind of idiocy is that?
Sorry if I was too flip or angry, but some of these issues are no-brainers and yet go on and on and on. Again, sorry you are disappointed.
Mute is what your ridiculous statements should be.
We could always run Michelle Bachman as P, w Newt as VP and have a VP who really helps Govern for a change. Dan Burton might like a VP slot too. Where does it say you can't come out of the gates as a team, with complementary skill sets, similar values and dual effort all the way. If it is about needing 2 war chests, I don't think they need to worry. If they pick the right people, money will come. The people are very hungry!
This time however, I WILL vote Republican, across the board, especially Secretary of State! And if more than 1 runs for Rep seat, will know which one I really want to vote for!
Personally I don't expect him to run again, I think someone else will step up to the plate.
That is why his winning the CPAC Straw Poll is so unpopular with the Establishment Republicans! Tea party advocates who want Liberty and freedom back in the USA, would do well to remember this fact!
The powers that be, are going to try and steal your choice and stop your bid for a leader, that will allow you to have a Constitutional America again!
Do not let the two party paradyne confuse or take away your choice come election time! Keep this in mind on Nov.2 election as well, vote in as many Conservative Libertarian Independants as you can, Constitutionalists who are not involved with the Elitist organizations mentioned above!
As long as we have Elitists' in our Government, we will never have a free America period! No if's and's or but's!
We need to be registering and running Republican, and being conservatives. If we enter the mainstream party as candidates, the entrenched can be dislodged. Now is our moment, but not by splitting the vote!
That is why his winning the CPAC Straw Poll is so unpopular with the Establishment Republicans! Tea party advocates who want Liberty and freedom back in the USA, would do well to remember this fact!
The powers that be, are going to try and steal your choice and stop your bid for a leader, that will allow you to have a Constitutional America again!
Do not let the two party paradyne confuse or take away your choice come election time! Keep this in mind on Nov.2 election as well, vote in as many Conservative Libertarian Independants as you can, Constitutionalists who are not involved with the Elitist organizations mentioned above!
As long as we have Elitists' in our Government, we will never have a free America period! No if's and's or but's!
Sorry Cena, I meant to type Congressman Dr. Ron Paul, that is a typo on my part!
Enjoyed your comment. May I please ask, how can anyone decide on such an important issue as to who will lead this country when the last three presidents did not keep their campaign promises and or committed crimes?
Thanking you in advance.
Would you like to be able to know what is going on in government; good, bad and ugly?
Like to be able to pick out just which candidates are fair candidates to be considered to recieve your vote come election time?
For a fast PHD on the inside political manipulations and which of your political leaders are actually working for the peope - and a guide to help you perform activities towards helping the kind of outcomes you and your family would like to see brought forward from Government - go to:
http://www.nwosurvivalguide.com
Thanks for the site info. I was aware of these matters. How do we approach this problem in a safe non-violent manner as you know any push back will be met with brute force and the backing of laws they now have in place. I would support any independent organization to remedy the situation. I love my country and am willing to do what ever it takes to prevent tyranny.
According to CNN:
"Texas Rep. Ron Paul won a California straw poll, the state Republican Party announced in a statement Saturday night...Paul won with 44.9% of the votes, Texas Gov. Rick Perry came in second with 29.3% of the votes, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney came in third with 8.8% of the votes."
According to the linked article:
"Paul, who addressed the summit Saturday morning and whose supporters flooded the convention, took 37 percent in the informal poll, or 732 votes among the 1,983 attendees who participated in the survey.
Businessman Herman Cain placed second with 23 percent, or 447 votes; former senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) took third with 16 percent, or 323 votes; and Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) placed fourth with 8 percent, or 167 votes.
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) took fifth with 8 percent, or 157 votes. And former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (R), who addressed the summit Saturday after Paul, placed sixth with 4 percent, garnering only 88 votes of the nearly 2,000 cast."
Guess who gets the nomination?