ctiger2
02-22-2010, 02:10 PM
h ttp://biggovernment.com/amellon/2010/02/22/the-insignificance-of-the-straw-poll/
The enthusiasm at this year’s CPAC was palpable. Conservatives turned out in record droves, optimistic and on the offensive against a government they rightly feel has run amok. Dick Cheney and John Bolton amongst others predicted that Barack Obama would be a one term President. I would take a more cautious view. Beatable as I think President Obama is based upon his bombastic arrogance, blind elitism, blatant dishonesty, and boundless seemingly intentionally destructive policies, if the 2010 CPAC straw poll tells us anything it is that the conservative movement is still searching for its opponent.
Before delving into the numbers, it is important to note that while roughly 1/4 of the 10,000 in attendance at CPAC participated in the poll, around 50% of these voters were students. And indeed the youthful Campaign for Liberty crowd was highly visible and energized throughout the convention, which explains the extent of Congressman Ron Paul’s success. Paul, the staunch libertarian came in first with 31% of the vote, Mitt Romney the establishment candidate second with 22% and Sarah Palin the (absent from CPAC) Tea Partier third but lagging significantly behind at 7%.
What is fascinating about the results is that the top three spots were split between three different types of conservatives, and further that the top two spots were divided between two candidates so bipolar. In my view, Ron Paul comes off as unrefined, radical and principled, while Mitt Romney comes off as polished, moderate and slickly political. Sarah Palin alternatively is the homey if not hokie populist.
As with all candidates, each in their own way is flawed. Leaving aside Paul’s perceived radicalism, disproportionate support from the youth, marginalization in the Republican Party and thus almost assured unelectability in a national election, Ann Coulter’s half-joking argument that she liked everything about Ron Paul but his stance on defense probably best reflects conservative sentiments. The merits of Paul’s belief in Austrian economics, strict adherence to the Constitution and defense of the individual are great, but his world view is warped and potentially suicidal.
Ron Paul and others in the conservative movement like Pat Buchanan have been outspoken in their criticism of our alliance with Israel and our battles in the Middle East, making the naive argument that terrorists attack us almost solely because of these two factors. They fail to mention that as was well-documented during Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer’s fabulous FDI presentation, the Koran calls on Muslims to destroy those who will not submit to Sharia through both outright war and obfuscation. They fail to mention the ties between Islam and Nazism going back to WWII, and Muslims’ battles with Jews and Christians going back for centuries. They fail to understand that while generally speaking, most conservatives would agree that isolation except when absolutely necessary is in America’s best interest, we should ardently defend Israel because it is fighting on the front lines of a battle against an ideology that wishes to destroy us. They fail to understand that if we do not at times preemptively and forcefully strike enemies who themselves only understand force, we can kiss goodbye liberty and the pursuit of happiness because we will be endangering American life.
Surely reasonable conservatives can debate on the prudence of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the efficacy or lack thereof of nation-building in general. But it is the overall notion and one espoused by Barack Obama himself that terrorists attack us because of things we have done, whether it be in diplomacy or past battles that is naive, intellectually dishonest and destructive. Romney and Palin presumably understand this, and while the vast majority of Americans seem to understand this as well, the small government message overwhelmingly trumped concerns over terrorism at CPAC.
As for Romney’s weakness, besides his Mormonism which may again hurt him nationally, the fact of the matter is that this is a Governor that implemented a state-run healthcare system. During a time in which conservatives specifically and Americans generally are against government intervention in all aspects of our lives and especially in healthcare, how could we be so hypocritical as to support a candidate who implemented socialized healthcare in his own state? I grant that Romney came from Massachusetts and that a Massachusetts Governor could not govern like a southern Governor, but my read is that he is first and foremost a politician who happens to be nominally conservative. I do not believe that the Tea Partiers and other activists in the movement are looking for sterile, opportunist candidates.
On Sarah Palin, I think broadly speaking most conservatives would agree with her policy positions. As a person, I think we all want to like her, and the constant callous and cowardly attacks on her by the left alone engender at the very least our sympathy. She is not the northeastern Ivy League elitist, nor is she the slick standard politician and so Palin represents an attractive alternative to the status quo. But frankly there are times when I see her interviewed that I have to cringe. Her positions often seem superficial. She knows how to articulate the main talking points, but I have not seen an ability to delve deeper into the nuts and bolts of the issues.
This is not to say that professorial types are any better, but a more substantive grounding than what we have seen is needed. This is something that a Reagan had. If one looks back at Reagan’s writings, this is a man who had a fundamental understanding of principles, and an unmatched adroitness in concisely breaking the issues down according to them. We may never have another Reagan, but a viable candidate will need to have a more serious understanding of the challenges we face. This is not something that can be developed merely by surrounding oneself with smart advisers.
Most telling from the straw poll was the fact that 53% of voters were unsatisfied with the current field of Republican presidential candidates. I believe that conservatives want someone who they see as embodying certain traits of all three of the top vote-getters. They want someone with the libertarian streak and principled Constitutionalism of a Ron Paul, the professionalism and private sector experience of a Mitt Romney and the humanity and commitment to defense of a Sarah Palin.
But Republicans need not fret. 2012 is a long way away, and our first focus should be on catapulting principled conservatives to the Congress in 2010. Most importantly, we must keep in mind that though we need political representation to get the government out of the way, it is not a leader or set of leaders but the American people that are going to restore this nation to greatness.
Strange, because to me the only significant winner could have been Ron Paul. Anyone else would have meant more of the same. Ron Paul winning is extremely significant and it confirms the real changes that are about to happen.
The enthusiasm at this year’s CPAC was palpable. Conservatives turned out in record droves, optimistic and on the offensive against a government they rightly feel has run amok. Dick Cheney and John Bolton amongst others predicted that Barack Obama would be a one term President. I would take a more cautious view. Beatable as I think President Obama is based upon his bombastic arrogance, blind elitism, blatant dishonesty, and boundless seemingly intentionally destructive policies, if the 2010 CPAC straw poll tells us anything it is that the conservative movement is still searching for its opponent.
Before delving into the numbers, it is important to note that while roughly 1/4 of the 10,000 in attendance at CPAC participated in the poll, around 50% of these voters were students. And indeed the youthful Campaign for Liberty crowd was highly visible and energized throughout the convention, which explains the extent of Congressman Ron Paul’s success. Paul, the staunch libertarian came in first with 31% of the vote, Mitt Romney the establishment candidate second with 22% and Sarah Palin the (absent from CPAC) Tea Partier third but lagging significantly behind at 7%.
What is fascinating about the results is that the top three spots were split between three different types of conservatives, and further that the top two spots were divided between two candidates so bipolar. In my view, Ron Paul comes off as unrefined, radical and principled, while Mitt Romney comes off as polished, moderate and slickly political. Sarah Palin alternatively is the homey if not hokie populist.
As with all candidates, each in their own way is flawed. Leaving aside Paul’s perceived radicalism, disproportionate support from the youth, marginalization in the Republican Party and thus almost assured unelectability in a national election, Ann Coulter’s half-joking argument that she liked everything about Ron Paul but his stance on defense probably best reflects conservative sentiments. The merits of Paul’s belief in Austrian economics, strict adherence to the Constitution and defense of the individual are great, but his world view is warped and potentially suicidal.
Ron Paul and others in the conservative movement like Pat Buchanan have been outspoken in their criticism of our alliance with Israel and our battles in the Middle East, making the naive argument that terrorists attack us almost solely because of these two factors. They fail to mention that as was well-documented during Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer’s fabulous FDI presentation, the Koran calls on Muslims to destroy those who will not submit to Sharia through both outright war and obfuscation. They fail to mention the ties between Islam and Nazism going back to WWII, and Muslims’ battles with Jews and Christians going back for centuries. They fail to understand that while generally speaking, most conservatives would agree that isolation except when absolutely necessary is in America’s best interest, we should ardently defend Israel because it is fighting on the front lines of a battle against an ideology that wishes to destroy us. They fail to understand that if we do not at times preemptively and forcefully strike enemies who themselves only understand force, we can kiss goodbye liberty and the pursuit of happiness because we will be endangering American life.
Surely reasonable conservatives can debate on the prudence of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the efficacy or lack thereof of nation-building in general. But it is the overall notion and one espoused by Barack Obama himself that terrorists attack us because of things we have done, whether it be in diplomacy or past battles that is naive, intellectually dishonest and destructive. Romney and Palin presumably understand this, and while the vast majority of Americans seem to understand this as well, the small government message overwhelmingly trumped concerns over terrorism at CPAC.
As for Romney’s weakness, besides his Mormonism which may again hurt him nationally, the fact of the matter is that this is a Governor that implemented a state-run healthcare system. During a time in which conservatives specifically and Americans generally are against government intervention in all aspects of our lives and especially in healthcare, how could we be so hypocritical as to support a candidate who implemented socialized healthcare in his own state? I grant that Romney came from Massachusetts and that a Massachusetts Governor could not govern like a southern Governor, but my read is that he is first and foremost a politician who happens to be nominally conservative. I do not believe that the Tea Partiers and other activists in the movement are looking for sterile, opportunist candidates.
On Sarah Palin, I think broadly speaking most conservatives would agree with her policy positions. As a person, I think we all want to like her, and the constant callous and cowardly attacks on her by the left alone engender at the very least our sympathy. She is not the northeastern Ivy League elitist, nor is she the slick standard politician and so Palin represents an attractive alternative to the status quo. But frankly there are times when I see her interviewed that I have to cringe. Her positions often seem superficial. She knows how to articulate the main talking points, but I have not seen an ability to delve deeper into the nuts and bolts of the issues.
This is not to say that professorial types are any better, but a more substantive grounding than what we have seen is needed. This is something that a Reagan had. If one looks back at Reagan’s writings, this is a man who had a fundamental understanding of principles, and an unmatched adroitness in concisely breaking the issues down according to them. We may never have another Reagan, but a viable candidate will need to have a more serious understanding of the challenges we face. This is not something that can be developed merely by surrounding oneself with smart advisers.
Most telling from the straw poll was the fact that 53% of voters were unsatisfied with the current field of Republican presidential candidates. I believe that conservatives want someone who they see as embodying certain traits of all three of the top vote-getters. They want someone with the libertarian streak and principled Constitutionalism of a Ron Paul, the professionalism and private sector experience of a Mitt Romney and the humanity and commitment to defense of a Sarah Palin.
But Republicans need not fret. 2012 is a long way away, and our first focus should be on catapulting principled conservatives to the Congress in 2010. Most importantly, we must keep in mind that though we need political representation to get the government out of the way, it is not a leader or set of leaders but the American people that are going to restore this nation to greatness.
Strange, because to me the only significant winner could have been Ron Paul. Anyone else would have meant more of the same. Ron Paul winning is extremely significant and it confirms the real changes that are about to happen.