Sunday, February 13, 2011

The 2011 CPAC Straw Poll (and Why the GOP is Boned)

First of all, here's the pdf with the results.  I couldn't find a list worth a tinker's damn to paste.  The only one I found worthwhile omitted my preferred candidate so far, so screw the bastard that posted it.

Here we go:

Ron Paul - 30% - No surprise here.  If people were elected by getting a passel of nutjobs together to create false results, Ron Paul would already be President and we'd seriously be boned (more on that in the next post).  There's probably no one on this list that is better domestically and worse in foreign policy.  And you'd have a better chance electing a toaster oven.  On my list of people that would make me consider re-electing Obama.

Mitt Romney - 23% - RINO!  This is what you get when you take someone with no spine, no hard positions, and a great hairdo and talking points.  Like voting for four years of Russian roulette, except without the fun head wounds, because he makes Bill Clinton look stalwart on political positions.  Essentially McCain without the senility, it would have me scrambling to find a good third party candidate.

Gary Johnson - 6% - Former governor of New Mexico. I don't know a lot about him, and he's not big to the scene yet.  However, on the domestic front, I think he'd do just about as good as Ron Paul.  I reserve judgment on him until I hear if he's going to follow in Ron Paul's isolationist footsteps before I give him the thumbs up.  Plus, the whole marijuana legalization thing will kill him politically, even if he is right.

Chris Christie - 6% - Since he's said he's not running, this is more of a popularity contest vote.  I don't know his ideas on foreign relations, but based on what I know, I'd love to see him eating Obama's ass in a debate.

Newt Gingrich - 5% - On some things, Newt is right on the money.  On others, he needs his head examined.  Newt is great for churning out policy wonkery, but I think he'd do some really stupid consensus shit if he did get to the White House.  And we don't need consensus with the establishment GOP and the Democrats. We had that shit in 2008.

Tim Pawlenty - 4% - Another candidate I don't know a lot about, I have a sense he's a party-line Republican.   also note he has no problem raising taxes on things he wants to punish.  Bad form, bad candidate.

Mitch Daniels - 4% - Seems to pave a middle-of-the-road approach next door in Indiana.  But he had no problem raising taxes.  That's enough for me to say bye.

Sarah Palin - 4% - Ah, sweet Sarah.  The more I hear her sound bite speeches, the more I'm convinced running her is suicide.  Although more conservative than the idiot (John McCain) who brought her to the national stage, there were always some questions I had about her conservatism.  Plus, Obama would eat her ass in a debate.  Easily.  So I don't think Tina Fey has to worry about whether she'll have a gig mocking President Palin. 

Herman Cain - 2% - My pick.  I don't agree with everything, but I do agree with him on what matters.  Now I think he's a long shot at best, but I'm with him until he's out.  Plus, he'll make things a whole lot more interesting and would also eat Obama's ass in a debate. 

Mike Huckabee - 2% - (Obscenities follow) Fuck fucking Huck-a-Duck.  He's the reason we got stuck with McCain instead of Romney.  And we might not have had either if Romney had lost in 2008.  Plus, he's half and half on most issues.  So no fucking way.  The only thing that keeps him above making me want to vote Obama is his support for the FairTax.

Rick Santorum - 2% - Social Conservative.  As in he'd run on abortion, gay marriage, creationism, etc.  And he says America "belongs to God."  No, and if it does, I've got a deity's ass to eat in a debate.  A great candidate if the GOP wants to return to minority status.


John Thune- 2% - Not as bad as Rick Santorum.  Also not as exciting as a toaster oven.

Jon Huntsman - 1% - I had to look him up.  Wikipedia says RINO, more or less.  There are RINO's who people have actually heard of to lose, so why am I bothering?
 
Haley Barbour - 1% - GOP rank-and-filer from the Deep South.  Meh. 

So that's the list.  Note that the big numbers fall for two terrible candidates.  One that's an unelectable isolationist who always wins popularity contests for the most rabid supporters (Paul), and the most milquetoast RINO/political chameleon of the lot. I only see a couple good candidates, one of which is not running, and a few ok candidates. 

But if this is the kind of field that's the GOP will be fielding as we come to 2012, we're boned.

21 comments:

Jerry Critter said...

I agree, but 2012 is still a ways off.

soapster said...

"There's probably no one on this list that is better domestically and worse in foreign policy."

Worse than what; our stellar foreign policy over the past 40+ years?

dmarks said...

There are some brights spots in the last 40 years foreign policy... which would not have happened if Paul had his way.

Domestically, his idea of stripping American citizens of citizenship because of crimes of their parents is rather awful.

soapster said...

"Domestically, his idea of stripping American citizens of citizenship because of crimes of their parents is rather awful."

So you really don't care about the Constitution of the United States do you?

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
- End -

If you come to this country illegally, you are not a citizen of the United States nor of any state within the United States. Thus, you are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States but of some other country from whence you originated. So then, if someone who themselves does not meet the requirements necessary for jurisdiction within the United States, how can their child claim jurisdiction of the US?

Bear in mind as well that we haven't even begun to discuss the context of the 14th Amendment which, as you should well know, was related not to illegal immigrants from Mexico and parts yonder but but freed slaves.

So you see DMarks, just like Democrats who can shred the Constitution to enact Obamacare and the like, so called "conservatives" are too just as culpable in the practice.

Jerry Critter said...

Give it up, soapster. The Supreme Court already has ruled unambiguously that under the 14th Amendment anyone born in the United States automatically becomes a U.S. citizen.

That ground has already been plowed.

dmarks said...

Soap said:

"So you really don't care about the Constitution of the United States do you?"

From Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

This is actually IN the Constitution!

I was referring to Paul's race-feuled attempts to strip citizenship from American citizens, "persons born...in the United States" as defined in the Amendment, based on the crimes of their parents.

"we haven't even begun to discuss the context of the 14th Amendment"

"Context" arguments are used by those both on the Left and Right to attempt to nullify the actual meanings of certain parts of the Constitution they do not like.

So let us look at the actual facts:

1) The "context" was not ratified as part of this actual Amendment. It was left off. Civics 101: if it was left out and not ratified, it's not part of the Constitution.

2) There is no "*", no exemption that you seek. (i.e. "Except for people of Mexican ancestry). No, it's not there.

3) "related not to illegal immigrants from Mexico and parts yonder but but freed slaves" is a matter of imagination. There are no such distinctions in the Amendment. Say, are you sure you aren't bucking for an Obama supreme court appointment? You are doing pretty good at ignoring what the Constitution actually says.

--------------

Jerry said:

"Give it up, soapster. The Supreme Court already has ruled unambiguously that under the 14th Amendment anyone born in the United States automatically becomes a U.S. citizen. "

Well, it's damn clear to anyone with any ounce of reading comprehension skills.

soapster said...

Simply because the Supreme Court rules something Constitutional doesn't mean they interpreted it correctly. There's a whole damn flurry of just simply bad decisions. Pretty difficult to have an impartial jury that doesn't fall in lockstep with the positions of the party that appointed them.

"...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..."

It's as if your interpretation completely omits this section.

Lastly, when I say context DMarks, I'm not implying the founders intent. I'm implying context. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments are often otherwise referred to as what? Anyone....anyone......?????

The Civil War amendments. Thus, their context is absolutely germane to that particular era and that particular subject/issue.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Ed Quillen of the Denver Post has this to say about the 14th Amendment:

"Tom Tancredo says that it's a "ridiculous and unconstitutional policy that automatically grants citizenship to any child born within the borders of the U.S. regardless of the legal status of that child's parents."

Presumably, the Republican framers of the 14th Amendment would have excluded the children of illegal immigrants if they'd only thought of it.

The flaw with that speculation is that there was no such thing as an "illegal immigrant" in 1868. American borders were open to all comers; the first federal immigration law (other than the 1808 statute banning the importation of slaves) was not passed until 1875. Since there were no immigration laws, no one could violate them.

Or perhaps Tancredo — and presumably Lamborn and Coffman — believe that the children of illegal immigrants are not citizens because they are somehow not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." But if they're not subject to American jurisdiction, how do you arrest or deport them?

[skip]

The 14th has been criticized on other grounds. States' rights types don't like it because it extends the federal Bill of Rights to state governments. It says, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," thereby preventing Alabama from establishing an official state religion.

Beyond that, there may be another reason why modern Republicans are so anxious to repudiate one of their party's great legacies. The 14th says "born," not "conceived" or "fertilized." In other words, the Constitution says personhood begins at birth. And that, rather than immigrant babies, is what really perturbs modern Republicans."

Jerry Critter said...

Soapster,
You will never get the Supreme Court to change the 14th Amendment. The correct way to do it is with a new amendment redefining citizenship. Otherwise, you are just talking to hear yourself speak.

I might even support such an effort if the new amendment included a new definition of a person so that businesses would no longer have the same rights as a person. In other words, let's undo the Citizens United decisions also.

soapster said...

A new Amendment isn't necessary as Section 5 clearly states:

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

On that point, I'd be extremely careful about any calls for an Amendment on the basis that it'd almost certainly lead to something more.

dmarks said...

Soapster, I suggest that you read the Amendment again. Your views are in direct contradiction of what it actually says.

Shaw said: "The 14th says "born," not "conceived" or "fertilized." In other words, the Constitution says personhood begins at birth"

Careful, you are stepping into imagination too. The Amendment says NOTHING about personhood. It is about citizenship.

If it actually says what you claim, it is also saying that everyone who is not American isn't a person. Which might fit in with Ron Paul's inhuman "if they are foreign, let 'em die" foreign policy views. But anyway.

dmarks said...

Jerry said:

"I might even support such an effort if the new amendment included a new definition of a person so that businesses would no longer have the same rights as a person. In other words, let's undo the Citizens United decisions also."

I would fully support getting rid of THAT part of "Citizens United", as long as the anti-censorship parts are maintained intact.

soapster said...

"Which might fit in with Ron Paul's inhuman "if they are foreign, let 'em die" foreign policy views. But anyway."

Unquestionably, that is the most ironic and ignorant comment I've ever read considering that Ron Paul didn't vote in the affirmative for the invasion of Iraq which has killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians.

dmarks said...

My statement was very well informed.

Yes, Paul voted on the side of the terrorists: to let them attack us, and slaughter with impunity. Paul's ignorant vote on Iraq is one reason I seek to minimize his impact on policy. That's the foreign policy of Paul and those like him: if it is outside the US borders, act like you know nothing about what is going on, and vote like it too.

The US retaliation against Saddam's regime and the subsequent actions against the remaining terrorists has actually saved lives there: the death rate has gone down compared to when Saddam ran the place.

And the vast majority of the deaths in the Iraq war were caused by Saddam or the terrorists, either through their "human shield" policies or by direct executions.

Shivs said...

dmarks said,
"The US retaliation against Saddam's regime and the subsequent actions against the remaining terrorists has actually saved lives there: the death rate has gone down compared to when Saddam ran the place."

Are you fucking kidding me?. The only damn reason that we went there in the first place is to try and control the flow of oil to the U.S. The reason of terror was only used to allow it to happen. I still remember Ms. Rice saying that we needed to worry about a mushroom cloud when the CIA knew damn well there was no nuclear weapons there!

If you all want to talk about failed foreign policy, you just need to look at the last 8 years under Bush. The overwhelming support shown by other nations after 9/11 could have only been lost as quickly if we would have started the 3rd world war!..

dmarks said...

Shiva said: "Are you fucking kidding me?. The only damn reason that we went there in the first place is to try and control the flow of oil to the U.S."

Actually, that had nothing to do with it. Saddam was always willing to make sweetheart deals with the US to keep the oil flowing.
You are buying into disproven conspiracy theories.

Also, Saddam was given ample and generous time to comply with the very reasonable cease-fire demands. Extra years, in fact. If the "oil" conspiracy theory had been true, his regime would not have been given any chance.

"the CIA knew damn well there was no nuclear weapons there!"

The CIA knew the fact that Saddam Hussein was a major terrorist kingpin who DID seek to acquire or build nuclear weapons.

"If you all want to talk about failed foreign policy, you just need to look at the last 8 years under Bush"

No, that was quite successful.

"The overwhelming support shown by other nations after 9/11 "

That was all a PR problem. The lies about "oil wars" became prevalant.

Toad734 said...

This all sounds good to me. But god would I love to see Palin debate Obama...Or even the said toaster oven.

If Santorum or Huckabee get elected I may have to leave the country. I respect Huckabee for losing the weight and promoting healthiness (which according to Rush Limbaugh is a major crime if you are a Democrat or a woman)but he really thinks a magic man in the sky waves a wand and created the Earth in 6 days...I know plenty of other Presidents have thought the same but many of those came long before Origin of Species was even published so I can't fault them for that...Ok, I should rephrase that, Santorum and Huckabee don't believe in evolution and thinks homosex makes the baby jesus cry. We have the fossils...It's all there...you can believe in god but you are an idiot if you don't believe in Evolution...Would these guys even have science advisers?? Would they replace NASA with a bunch of Alchemists as opposed to Astronomers?

I would actually like to see Ron Pauls policies in action...No one has really taken a true Libertarians approach before and I wonder how long it would take for him to be funneling money to Koch, Exxon and Wall Street like all the other Republicans...His son is a fucking idiot though.

I think guy like Daniels or Christie will end up coming out of the woodwork.

soapster said...

"His son [Rand Paul] is a fucking idiot though."

And you've reached this conclusion based on?.....

Seems to me that proposing $500 Billion in immediate cuts to the budget is a sure sign of someone who actually understands the magnitude of our fiscal problems.

dmarks said...

Toad said:

"and I wonder how long it would take for him to be funneling money to Koch, Exxon and Wall Street like all the other Republicans...His son is a fucking idiot though."

A direct challenge, Toad

1) Fine any mention of any gift from the government, probably at the behest of Republicans, to the Koch brothers.

2) Find the same for Exxon.



(Actually, when it came to the Wall Street handouts you mentioned, most Republicans opposed them and most Democrats supported)

dmarks said...

Since you wrote this, Obama launched a major military action and has enrage the hard left.

The hard left is already mad at Obama for renewing the tax cuts which were mostly for the middle class.

Look now for a serious challenge to Obama in 2012: a Ted Kennedy to damage his candiciay and make more of a Carter out of him.

Or even a hard-left candidate starts as a Democrat but who ends up running on his own and gets 6% of the vote, enough to be a spoiler and hand the election to one of the weak Republicans whom you named.

Jerry Critter said...

I think it will only damage him if the hard-left candidate runs in a third party. Otherwise, the left will still vote for Obama. He will be viewed as better than any person the republicans will run.