Ron Paul is going to run for president again, and why not: It’s his moment. The Republican Party borrowed his rhetoric wholesale (without also borrowing his principles) and used that ‘libertarian independent’ magic to revitalize its tarnished brand. So why shouldn’t the good doctor make another go of it? He’s the original Tea Partyer and so on.
As I said in the last one I posted, i am not sure how telling this is. The CPAC app alerted me that the straw polls were soon ending, so I checked and was glad to see these results!
That’s the title of an article from the Christian Science Monitor written by Brad Knickerbocker. Apparently when a politician not favored by a reporter wins, the poll doesn’t matter. If CPAC doesn’t matter, how come the Christian Science Monitor didn’t write an article prior to the event about how the results for the straw hat poll would be meaningless? Instead, they wait until after the poll before determining the significance of a winner.
Meanwhile, Ron Paul is beloved by libertarians and – to his credit, according to his many tea party followers – an outsider among mainstream elected Republicans and those who vote for them year after year.
“The 75-year-old congressman may run for president again, but his prospects for winning the GOP nomination are nil,” write Jonathan Martin and James Hohmann at Politico.com. “Yet because he has an intense following among anti-war youths, and has supporters are willing to organize his effort, the libertarian-leaning Paul dominates the balloting and renders the survey as largely irrelevant.”
Let me get this right, Brad doesn’t think anti-war youths matter. Yet isn’t that the same group that drove Obama to victory in 2008? (and will also likely abandon Obama consider he reneged on all of his promises about the Middle East and Guantanamo).
Who is the idiot you see above? That would be Chris Cillizza.
The Conservative Political Action Conference, an annual rite of passage for Republicans with an eye on the presidency, concluded over the weekend with Texas Rep. Ron Paul emerging as the winner of the gathering’s 2012 straw poll.
But, sometimes winning can actually be closer to losing — as in Paul’s case - and losing (or at least not finishing in the top few in the straw poll) can mask a winning performance at the three-day convention.
Why is winning better than losing? Never explained, although my guess is that Chris has a bias against Ron Paul so wanted to downplay the fact that Ron Paul won.
This is the note made about Ron Paul:
Ron Paul: Yes, he won the straw poll for the second straight year. But, Paul’s speech to the CPAC crowd - heavy on talk of defunding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as odd pronouncements like “government should never be able to do anything you can’t do” - displayed the limits of his reach within the GOP. Paul is a sensation, to be sure. But with a sliver of the Republican electorate.
Wait, let me get this straight… Ron Paul has a sliver of the Republican electorate… Yet he won CPAC two years straight. If Paul only has a sliver of support, then how much support do the people that lost to him have?
With imbeciles like Chris Cillizza, is it any wonder why most national news papers are dying off?