NBC Nightly News just lead with Rand as CPAC victor

[Matt Collins]

Of course their main theme was that "the Party is divided" lol...

[Bastiat's The Law]

tube!

[green73]

led

[Bruno]

Of course their main theme was that "the Party is divided" lol...

The party will unite when they all campaign for Rand.

[anaconda]

Of course their main theme was that "the Party is divided" lol...

The party is divided. Wedge issues give a pass from both left and right to the tyrannical imperialist corporatocracy. The sheep don't get it. The sheep of the sort in this video appear to want to keep their gay bashing and murderous xenophobia club intact while they lose elections by increasingly greater margins. They also don't realize that Thomas Jefferson would face palm them for forcing marriage laws on people or traversing entire oceans to kill people and plunder resources. These people do not know the definition of "patriot."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-dFX_rSB1g

[T.hill]

The party is divided. Wedge issues give a pass from both left and right to the tyrannical imperialist corporatocracy. The sheep don't get it. The sheep of the sort in this video appear to want to keep their gay bashing and murderous xenophobia club intact while they lose elections by increasingly greater margins. They also don't realize that Thomas Jefferson would face palm them for forcing marriage laws on people or traversing entire oceans to kill people and plunder resources. These people do not know the definition of "patriot."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-dFX_rSB1g

I never thought Rand or Ron's view on marriage was controversial to Republicans/conservatives, this is the first time I've heard any concerns about that. I thought that a majority liked the idea of ridding government intervention of marriage. Marco is gonna have some trouble being a part of that amnesty plan.

[green73]

led

[Mr.NoSmile]

The party is divided. Wedge issues give a pass from both left and right to the tyrannical imperialist corporatocracy. The sheep don't get it. The sheep of the sort in this video appear to want to keep their gay bashing and murderous xenophobia club intact while they lose elections by increasingly greater margins. They also don't realize that Thomas Jefferson would face palm them for forcing marriage laws on people or traversing entire oceans to kill people and plunder resources. These people do not know the definition of "patriot."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-dFX_rSB1g

I concur. I mean, you hear people saying a lot the Republican Party is divided, and they're not wrong. The Party is divided, whether with the neoconservatives who are moss covered or the younger folks. Or the tea party crowd. Or the social conservatives.

[Napolitanic Wars]

No tube, but:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3032619/ns/NBCNightlyNews/

[Brett85]

Rand never actually advocated having no government involvement in marriage at all at the state level. He's stated before that he's in favor of state marriage amendments. He just wants to get the federal government out of marriage.

[Brett85]

They also don't realize that Thomas Jefferson would face palm them for forcing marriage laws on people

When did Thomas Jefferson ever talk about marriage laws?

[anaconda]

I concur. I mean, you hear people saying a lot the Republican Party is divided, and they're not wrong. The Party is divided, whether with the neoconservatives who are moss covered or the younger folks. Or the tea party crowd. Or the social conservatives.

"MOSS COVERED?" - Ann skipped mentioning Rand entirely when she was asked, from the CPAC audience, to enumerate her picks for good presidential candidates for 2016.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj2ELHxl2Js

[anaconda]

When did Thomas Jefferson ever talk about marriage laws?

Exactly.

[Brett85]

Exactly.

When did Jefferson ever talk about the subject of marriage at all?

[anaconda]

When did Jefferson ever talk about the subject of marriage at all?

My rather whimsical and emotional speculation was that if Jefferson were alive today he might be very disappointed that the citizenry would prefer to legislate their vision for morality outside the enumerated powers of the federal government and at the inextricable cost of empowering and enabling a ruthless and tyrannical monied power grab upon their hard earned sovereign nation.

[Brett85]

Exactly. My speculation was that if Jefferson were alive today he would face palm the social conservatives for legislating marriage laws through the federal government, especially at the cost of giving a pass to a tyrannical power grab by the same government.

Maybe, I don't know. I just think that our main enemies are really the warmongering neo-conservatives, not the social conservatives. Some groups that are socially conservative are really our allies against the neo-conservatives, such as the Constitution Party and the John Birch Society.

[T.hill]

"MOSS COVERED?" - Ann skipped mentioning Rand entirely when she was asked, from the CPAC audience, to enumerate her picks for good presidential candidates for 2016.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj2ELHxl2Js

She did say though that there was no way she was going to vote for Marco Rubio, because of his amnesty plan. Or Chris Christie. She included Ted Cruz, but she added at the end she personally has a height requirement. So, that might of been it for her. lol

[rubioneocon]

Of course their main theme was that "the Party is divided" lol...
divided . . . you mean like Giuliani and McCain in '08 . . . both certain losers in a general election . . .

[itshappening]

Williams has the highest rated news program so any coverage I suppose is good..

[Tod]

I'm surprised they didn't lead with, "Rubio tied for winning CPAC"

[acptulsa]

On Meet the Press this morning, one of the commentators talked about Reagan's 'three legged stool'. She talked about the effect of non-intervention on hawks, and mentioned Rand Paul by name in pointing out that he told the CPAC audience that so-called 'so-cons' might be wise to cool their rhetoric. Of course, you could almost hear her licking her chops as she discussed the wedges that could conceivably be driven to divide us and our infusion of youth from the 'mossbacks'. Of course, the discussion was not allowed to go deep enough to examine whether libertarians can win over hawks by being hawking on DEfense. Of course, it wasn't allowed to go deep enough to examine how happy so-cons will be just to have Washington out of the business of promoting the alleged morality of the secularists. It was, in short, a circus largely defined by David Gregory saying, over and over, that he didn't want them talking about the economy, he wanted them talking about gay marriage. Nothing But Condescension.


When did Thomas Jefferson ever talk about marriage laws?

'History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government.'--Thomas Jefferson

Sorry, so-cons, but it's true. The key to our liberty lies in reducing 'secular' humanism to the level of all other religions so that it no longer has ascendency over them, not with shoving your particular creed down everyone's throats.


I'm surprised they didn't lead with, "Rubio tied for winning CPAC"

I am, however, not surprised that they didn't lead with a nice, simple, Rand Paul Wins Straw Poll. Of course, we all know that if Rubio had won by a similar margin, Rand Paul would not have shared the headline.

[rubioneocon]

I'm surprised they didn't lead with, "Rubio tied for winning CPAC"

Exactly . . . just like the live feed of the announcement itself yesterday at CPAC.

They announce "Rand wins at 25 %" with "a near, statistical tie in second is Rubio".

I'm thinking well, it was 25.10% to 24.89% . . . at first.

Which leads me to this question . . .
any source have the raw data of the 2930 total votes cast.
I want to do my own mathematics division exercises today please ? Thanks in advance.

[Brett85]

On Meet the Press this morning, one of the commentators talked about Reagan's 'three legged stool'. She talked about the effect of non-intervention on hawks, and mentioned Rand Paul by name in pointing out that he told the CPAC audience that so-called 'so-cons' might be wise to cool their rhetoric.

If Rand keeps going down that route and alientates social conservatives by continuing to call for "tolerance" and making it look like he supports gay marriage, he'll have zero chance to win the GOP primary in 2016. All he needs to do is reference the 10th amendment and make the case that most of these social issues should be handled by the states. The way he's going about it now is just alienating social conservatives he's going to have to win over to win the GOP primary in 2016.

[rubioneocon]

. . . Of course, we all know that if Rubio had won by a similar margin, Rand Paul would not have shared the headline.

It's fun that even after a win . . . they piss us off.

So, next year the goal for CPAC 2014 shall be 51 % cast votes for Rand Paul (R-Kentucky)
regardless of if it is in a field of 20 or whatever it is.

[Sola_Fide]

If Rand keeps going down that route and alientates social conservatives by continuing to call for "tolerance" and making it look like he supports gay marriage, he'll have zero chance to win the GOP primary in 2016. All he needs to do is reference the 10th amendment and make the case that most of these social issues should be handled by the states. The way he's going about it now is just alienating social conservatives he's going to have to win over to win the GOP primary in 2016.

I agree. If Rand thinks he is going to win by telling religious conservatives that they must change their values in order to support freedom for everyone, he's nuts and he will lose. Whoever is advising Rand to do this should be fired.

[anaconda]

If Rand keeps going down that route and alientates social conservatives by continuing to call for "tolerance" and making it look like he supports gay marriage, he'll have zero chance to win the GOP primary in 2016. All he needs to do is reference the 10th amendment and make the case that most of these social issues should be handled by the states. The way he's going about it now is just alienating social conservatives he's going to have to win over to win the GOP primary in 2016.

10th Amendment seems the way to go. It's also a great way to rally the voters, appealing to their state pride, individualism, rage against the Washington machine, etc.

[Brett85]

I agree. If Rand thinks he is going to win by telling religious conservatives that they must change their values in order to support freedom for everyone, he's nuts and he will lose. Whoever is advising Rand to do this should be fired.

"Freedom" has nothing to do with changing the definition of a word and a 6,000 year old tradition.

[Brett85]

Unless the pro gay marriage people are willing to accept poloygamist marriages, marriages between siblings, and marriages between cousins, they don't support "freedom for all."

[anaconda]

Exactly . . . just like the live feed of the announcement itself yesterday at CPAC.

They announce "Rand wins at 25 %" with "a near, statistical tie in second is Rubio".



The announcer fortunately made no reference to "statistics." He said "virtual dead heat," "literally tied," and "virtually tied."

[anaconda]

Unless the pro gay marriage people are willing to accept poloygamist marriages, marriages between siblings, and marriages between cousins, they don't support "freedom for all."

I would not object to any of these insofar as legislation goes.

[twomp]

Unless the pro gay marriage people are willing to accept poloygamist marriages, marriages between siblings, and marriages between cousins, they don't support "freedom for all."

If you and your sister or your cousin are already having sex, who cares if you get a marriage license or not? It's a piece of paper. So cons are hypocrites. They are against big government until they need big government to enforce THEIR religious beliefs.

[Brett85]

I would not object to any of these insofar as legislation goes.

At least you're consistent. Most of these pro gay marriage advocates are more concerned with promoting homosexuality than with allowing everyone to marry and promoting "equality for all."

[Brett85]

If you and your sister or your cousin are already having sex, who cares if you get a marriage license or not? It's a piece of paper. So cons are hypocrites. They are against big government until they need big government to enforce THEIR religious beliefs.

Rand isn't going to have any chance to win the GOP nomination if he alienates social conservatives. Social conservatives are really the only group other than libertarians who believe in reducing the size and scope of government. Just look at the Constitution Party, for example. Rand needs to form a coalition with the social conservatives to take on the warmongering neo-conservatives, not alienate the social conservatives.

[rubioneocon]

The announcer fortunately made no reference to "statistics." He said "virtual dead heat," "literally tied," and "virtually tied."

LOL . . . yeah, so they were mincing words

[acptulsa]

If Rand keeps going down that route and alientates social conservatives by continuing to call for "tolerance" and making it look like he supports gay marriage, he'll have zero chance to win the GOP primary in 2016. All he needs to do is reference the 10th amendment and make the case that most of these social issues should be handled by the states. The way he's going about it now is just alienating social conservatives he's going to have to win over to win the GOP primary in 2016.

Any so-called so-con who does not think it an improvement to leave marriage up to churches only is more interested in shoving their views down other people's throats than in conserving that which has made this society great. I don't think we need to worry about getting their support any time soon, any more than we have to worry about winning over the 'secular' humanists.

As for the issue that makes this issue important, well, if this lack of officiality over marriage causes the IRS problems, let us cure the problem by disbanding the IRS. And if this causes the insurance monolith problems, well, let those individual companies within the monolith who have solutions use them to beat up on their competition rather than us.

[Brett85]

Any so-called so-con who does not think it an improvement to leave marriage up to churches only is more interested in shoving their views down other people's throats than in conserving that which has made this society great.

Not really, they just believe that the traditional family unit is good for society, and they believe that abolishing marriage will lead to the breakdown of the family. Whether you agree with them or not, they don't have bad intentions. You do realize that many of these people agree with us on ending the wars and supporting non intervention overseas, right? The Constitution Party and John Birch society are good examples. Why alientate people who you're in complete agreement with on every other issue?

[anaconda]

If Rand keeps going down that route and alientates social conservatives by continuing to call for "tolerance" and making it look like he supports gay marriage, he'll have zero chance to win the GOP primary in 2016.

I missed where Rand made it look like he supports gay marriage. When did you hear him do this? Just curious. Thanks.

[supermario21]

I think the abortion stuff is going to help Rand though. Lots of people are praising him (especially seemingly conservative women and even young women) for being so pro-life, some even being surprised by it. I think the abortion issue is ultimately going to be more important than marriage. Rand's let's get marriage out of government may ultimately be more popular than Rubio saying let's leave it to states. Especially when Iowa already has legal gay marriage.

[acptulsa]

Not really, they just believe that the traditional family unit is good for society, and they believe that abolishing marriage will...

Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold it right there! Before you go any farther, explain to me how getting government out of marriage is the same as abolishing it? Seems to me that's simply improving it.

[Pisces]

I'm not sure what Rand's position on marriage is. The most recent article about the issue quotes his chief of staff saying that he believes in state laws that limit marriage to one man and one woman. At the federal level, he says he wants the federal tax code to not take into account marital status. That would hardly end all government involvement in marriage. I don't personally believe you can ever completely eliminate government involvement in marriage. There are just too many areas of law that deal with marriage and family.

The laws about marriage this country had in the past didn't exist because government imposed them on people. Government laws just reflected the prevailing views of the people. Most family law is based on common law that has been in existence for centuries. The problem today is that there is no consensus in this country anymore about what marriage actually is. For now, I think limiting federal government involvement in marriage to the extent that is possible is the best answer but it won't satisfy either side of the marriage debate.

Back to Rand, sometimes it seems that he is being purposefully ambiguous about his views. Someone eventually is going to pin him down on this so I hope he is prepared for that.

[Brett85]

I think the abortion stuff is going to help Rand though. Lots of people are praising him (especially seemingly conservative women and even young women) for being so pro-life, some even being surprised by it. I think the abortion issue is ultimately going to be more important than marriage. Rand's let's get marriage out of government may ultimately be more popular than Rubio saying let's leave it to states. Especially when Iowa already has legal gay marriage.

I hope you're right. I'm just worried about it when social conservative leaders are criticizing Rand's stance on marriage.

[itshappening]

like abortion or any other issue repeat after me "leave it to the states", "leave it to the states", "leave it to the states"

If Santorum wants to run as a hardcore Christian in Iowa let him, he's a pandering moron who has not held office for 8 years and not a suitable or credible presidential candidate

[Brett85]

I missed where Rand made it look like he supports gay marriage. When did you hear him do this? Just curious. Thanks.

I was watching Fox News last night, and the show was Justice with Judge Jeanine. They were talking about how Rubio talked about his opposition to abortion and gay marriage, but then Rand is a "libertarian" who supports abortion and gay marriage and "just wants to leave people alone." Rand gives people that impression when he says stuff life, "we need to become more "tolerant" as a party on social issues."

[Brett85]

They're trying to paint Rand as a social liberal who supports abortion and gay marriage in order to discredit his foreign policy views by making it seem like a less interventionist foreign policy is the "libertarian position" rather than the conservative position.

[itshappening]

They're trying to paint Rand as a social liberal who supports abortion and gay marriage in order to discredit his foreign policy views by making it seem like a less interventionist foreign policy is the "libertarian position" rather than the conservative position.

They will always find something to attack him with but I agree telling older evangelicals in Iowa and they need to be tolerant is probably not going to be a winning message.

[acptulsa]

I was watching Fox News last night...

You'll never become informed that way.


They're trying to paint Rand as a social liberal who supports abortion and gay marriage in order to discredit his foreign policy views by making it seem like a less interventionist foreign policy is the "libertarian position" rather than the conservative position.

Let them. It just makes Rand stronger in the general election.

Of course, it won't make it easier to win the nomination. But maybe if we keep showing those polls that demonstrated that Ron Paul would have beaten Obama, maybe their will to win will take over and they, too, will have enough sense to tune out Faux.

[Brett85]

Let them. It just makes Rand stronger in the general election.

Of course, it won't make it easier to win the nomination. But maybe if we keep showing those polls that demonstrated that Ron Paul would have beaten Obama, maybe their will to win will take over and they, too, will have enough sense to tune out Faux.

I wouldn't vote for Rand either if I thought that he supported abortion. Rand needs to come across as the conservative alternative to Rubio, not the "socially liberal" candidate.

[supermario21]

Most of the evangelical leaders are IRRELEVANT! Especially when they will have 1 or 2 of their own in the primary. If Huckabee or Santorum runs they're going to support them anyways. It'll help Rand's appeal in a general if evangelical leaders are skeptical. Rand looking like he wants to eliminate discrimination in the tax code (smart) for everyone and probably let the states settle the marriage definition. Remember, by introducing a personhood bill Rand will be able to call out Santorum as a fake. Remember all that title XI and XII BS Ron called him out on in the debate? Santorum won't be able to play the "50% pro life" card on Rand.

[itshappening]

Most of the evangelical leaders are IRRELEVANT! Especially when they will have 1 or 2 of their own in the primary. If Huckabee or Santorum runs they're going to support them anyways. It'll help Rand's appeal in a general if evangelical leaders are skeptical. Rand looking like he wants to eliminate discrimination in the tax code (smart) for everyone and probably let the states settle the marriage definition. Remember, by introducing a personhood bill Rand will be able to call out Santorum as a fake. Remember all that title XI and XII BS Ron called him out on in the debate? Santorum won't be able to play the "50% pro life" card on Rand.

He cannot win Iowa without the evangelicals. It's that simple.

[satchelmcqueen]

so we now officially have a NEW top tier. Marco Rubio, Chris Christie....and John Huntsman. lets link it to Fox and the others. drudge this bitch.
Exactly . . . just like the live feed of the announcement itself yesterday at CPAC.

They announce "Rand wins at 25 %" with "a near, statistical tie in second is Rubio".

I'm thinking well, it was 25.10% to 24.89% . . . at first.

Which leads me to this question . . .
any source have the raw data of the 2930 total votes cast.
I want to do my own mathematics division exercises today please ? Thanks in advance.

[supermario21]

http://edition.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/epolls/ia

Ron Paul almost did. And Rand will have the advantage of doing better with conservatives than Ron ever did.

[anaconda]

You'll never become informed that way.

Of course, it won't make it easier to win the nomination. But maybe if we keep showing those polls that demonstrated that Ron Paul would have beaten Obama, maybe their will to win will take over and they, too, will have enough sense to tune out Faux.

I'm hoping that Rand can convince "social conservatives" that they can actually regain the White House if they vote for him in the primary. The 10th Amendment argument could have great power of influence when argued eloquently from a conservative position. And Rand is just the guy to make it happen. :)