CPAC Straw Poll

[Denny Crane]

Conservatives had a big rally this past week, and it featured the first straw poll for republican nominee for president in 2012.

Guess who won!

Ron Paul, 31%
Romney 22%
Palin 7%
Palwenty 6%
Pence 5%
Gingrich 4%
Huckabee 4%

Too bad Paul will be 76 years old if he ran in 2012.

 

[maxiep]

It may be just me, but it seems the conservatives in this country are becoming more about small government (i.e., libertarian) than about social issues (i.e. "compassionate conservatism").

 

[barfo]

It may be just me, but it seems the conservatives in this country are becoming more about small government (i.e., libertarian) than about social issues (i.e. "compassionate conservatism").

I'd agree with that. The social issues for now seem to be taking a back seat. Maybe that's not surprising given the state of the economy.

However, it's curious to look at that list of "candidates" and note how many completely different viewpoints are represented.

Should be interesting to see how it shakes out.

barfo

 

[MrJayremmie]

It may be just me, but it seems the conservatives in this country are becoming more about small government (i.e., libertarian) than about social issues (i.e. "compassionate conservatism").

^which is good. But neo-cons are still ruining not only the conservatives but the entire republican party.

 

[mook]

It may be just me, but it seems the conservatives in this country are becoming more about small government (i.e., libertarian) than about social issues (i.e. "compassionate conservatism").

Have Republicans ever been that much dominated by conservative Christian social issues? They've very effectively used it while campaigning to draw in the voters (gay marriage, abortion, etc).

But what's really been the lasting policy effect? A gay marriage ban in some states that's obviously going to be completely eroded in a generation. No major changes to abortion law. Declines in capital punishment.

Raising abstinence as a means of birth control got highlighted, but it only seemed to point out how meager the results are from abstinence education. Nothing to show that really seems to have demonstrably changed the course of the nation.

I guess there's been a rise in anti-Darwinism. But I don't think it's really a result of Republican leadership. More of a grass-roots school board thing.

I guess gun freedoms have been strengthened, but that always seemed to me to have more appeal among the libertarian types than the christian types.

When I think of the lasting impact Republicans have had over the past 15 years, I think of wars, tax cuts and deregulation. Not exactly the kind of stuff on the top of Jesus's priority list.

 

[Denny Crane]

Have Republicans ever been that much dominated by conservative Christian social issues? They've very effectively used it while campaigning to draw in the voters (gay marriage, abortion, etc).

But what's really been the lasting policy effect? A gay marriage ban in some states that's obviously going to be completely eroded in a generation. No major changes to abortion law. Declines in capital punishment.

Raising abstinence as a means of birth control got highlighted, but it only seemed to point out how meager the results are from abstinence education. Nothing to show that really seems to have demonstrably changed the course of the nation.

I guess there's been a rise in anti-Darwinism. But I don't think it's really a result of Republican leadership. More of a grass-roots school board thing.

I guess gun freedoms have been strengthened, but that always seemed to me to have more appeal among the libertarian types than the christian types.

When I think of the lasting impact Republicans have had over the past 15 years, I think of wars, tax cuts and deregulation. Not exactly the kind of stuff on the top of Jesus's priority list.

In spite of, or because of, Republicans controlling the white house and congress for most of the time since 1980, we have a black president and two of the last three secretaries of state have been black people (one a woman).

I think that the republican appointees to SCOTUS have ruled against govt. when it comes to the taking of property, as well.

Oregon has an assisted suicide law. Many states have legalized medical marijuana, too. Though republican administrations have made token noises about fighting those things.

We've also had 2 major banking crises, the first being the S&L one. Though I place 90% of the blame on the Democrats for the latest one.

 

[mook]

In spite of, or because of, Republicans controlling the white house and congress for most of the time since 1980, we have a black president and two of the last three secretaries of state have been black people (one a woman).

I think that the republican appointees to SCOTUS have ruled against govt. when it comes to the taking of property, as well.

Oregon has an assisted suicide law. Many states have legalized medical marijuana, too. Though republican administrations have made token noises about fighting those things.

We've also had 2 major banking crises, the first being the S&L one. Though I place 90% of the blame on the Democrats for the latest one.

Not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me there. My point is that Republicans have long campaigned as "the Christian party", but when you look at the results you don't really see much "conservative Christian" in their legacy. Were I a conservative Christian, I'd feel pretty burned that they keep selling me that they understand my agenda, but once they get my vote they don't generate lasting results for me.

 

[Denny Crane]

I agree, sort of.

On one hand, you have GHW and GW Bush's legislative accomplishments. Those would be a clean air act (environmental!), a civil rights act (disabilities act), education (no child left behind), health care (medicare prescription drugs), infrastructure (highway bill was the biggest spending bill in history, before the so-called stimulus one passed in 2009), etc. Going back to Reagan (and W), you have a real rescue of Social Security and an attempt to fix it. All pretty big ticket Progressive agenda items, none particularly religious in nature or anything like that. Those are off the top of my head, there are certainly others. Oh yeah, big funding of fuel cells (global warming), and funds to fight AIDS in Africa.

On the other hand, you have guys like Ashcroft and Bill Bennett (quite religious) holding high appointed offices. We had the so-called gag order (by executive order) for overseas family planning clinics, and the general government policy (that even democrats agree with) forbidding the use of federal funds for abortions. War on Drugs, War on Crime - both of these fill our jails, and not particularly fairly.

On the latter (abortion, funds), I'm pro-choice but generally agree that we shouldn't be funding or promoting abortions overseas. We may be a secular society, but for certain many other nations are not. It's none of our business, and downright interfering with their culture and societies. Funding abortions here is obviously the right and fair thing to do as long as we're funding any/most health care procedures. Though I don't see govt. has any responsibility to make abortions easy or cheap.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me there. My point is that Republicans have long campaigned as "the Christian party", but when you look at the results you don't really see much "conservative Christian" in their legacy. Were I a conservative Christian, I'd feel pretty burned that they keep selling me that they understand my agenda, but once they get my vote they don't generate lasting results for me.

I have never once heard the repubs labeled as such. In fact, although just an opinion, but I doubt 50% of registered repubs attend church regularly. But sibce the party platform calls for morality, it should come as no surprise most church goers vote that direction. I mean, they have to identify with some political party.

 

[Eastoff]

It may be just me, but it seems the conservatives in this country are becoming more about small government (i.e., libertarian) than about social issues (i.e. "compassionate conservatism").

as a big government social liberal, I would rather see small government conservatives in office over "compassionate conservatives.

 

[Eastoff]

I have never once heard the repubs labeled as such. In fact, although just an opinion, but I doubt 50% of registered repubs attend church regularly. But sibce the party platform calls for morality, it should come as no surprise most church goers vote that direction. I mean, they have to identify with some political party.

It really started up with W. Bush in Texas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative

example of his election into governor smear tactics

featured a rumor that she[the incumbent] was a lesbian, along with a rare instance of such a tactic's making it into the public record — when a regional chairman of the Bush campaign allowed himself, perhaps inadvertently, to be quoted criticizing Richards for appointing avowed homosexual activists' to state jobs. The Atlantic, and others, connected the lesbian rumor to Karl Rove,[65] but Rove denied being involved.

on a side note, here's a reminder of why liberals got their panties in a twist (mine are still a little)

The machine recount showed that Bush had won the Florida vote by a margin of 537 votes out of six million cast.[77] Although he received 543,895 fewer individual votes than Gore nationwide, Bush won the election, receiving 271 electoral votes to Gore's 266

 

[Eastoff]

On the other hand, you have guys like Ashcroft and Bill Bennett (quite religious) holding high appointed offices. We had the so-called gag order (by executive order) for overseas family planning clinics, and the general government policy (that even democrats agree with) forbidding the use of federal funds for abortions. War on Drugs, War on Crime - both of these fill our jails, and not particularly fairly.

On the latter (abortion, funds), I'm pro-choice but generally agree that we shouldn't be funding or promoting abortions overseas. We may be a secular society, but for certain many other nations are not. It's none of our business, and downright interfering with their culture and societies. Funding abortions here is obviously the right and fair thing to do as long as we're funding any/most health care procedures. Though I don't see govt. has any responsibility to make abortions easy or cheap.

I agree with that first part mostly Denny, but the second/third part is misleading. They cut funds that taught non-abstinence only programs. (IE how to use a condom). There is a big difference between "abortion" "birth control/condoms" and "abstinence only"

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Conservatives had a big rally this past week, and it featured the first straw poll for republican nominee for president in 2012.

Guess who won!

Ron Paul, 31%
Romney 22%
Palin 7%
Palwenty 6%
Pence 5%
Gingrich 4%
Huckabee 4%

Too bad Paul will be 76 years old if he ran in 2012.

Not exactly true Denny,

CPAC had a straw poll last February.

Results:

Mitt Romney - 20 percent
Bobby Jindal - 14 percent
Ron Paul -13 percent
Sarah Palin - 13 percent
Newt Gingrich -10 percent
Mike Huckabee - 7 percent
Mark Sanford - 4 percent
Rudy Guiliani - 3 percent
Tim Pawlenty - 2 percent
Charlie Crist - 1 percent
Undecided - 9 percent

That was the first straw poll for the 2012 election.

 

[MikeDC]

Not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me there. My point is that Republicans have long campaigned as "the Christian party", but when you look at the results you don't really see much "conservative Christian" in their legacy. Were I a conservative Christian, I'd feel pretty burned that they keep selling me that they understand my agenda, but once they get my vote they don't generate lasting results for me.

I've never really seen them as "the Christian party" but rather the not explicitly "anti-Christian" party.

Were I a conservative Christian, which I'm not, I'd understand my choice as between party that's generally tolerant of and willing to allow me to do my thing in peace and a party that's generally intolerant of me as a person and often openly hostile to my beliefs.

 

[Denny Crane]

Not exactly true Denny,

CPAC had a straw poll last February.

Results:

Mitt Romney - 20 percent
Bobby Jindal - 14 percent
Ron Paul -13 percent
Sarah Palin - 13 percent
Newt Gingrich -10 percent
Mike Huckabee - 7 percent
Mark Sanford - 4 percent
Rudy Guiliani - 3 percent
Tim Pawlenty - 2 percent
Charlie Crist - 1 percent
Undecided - 9 percent

That was the first straw poll for the 2012 election.

OK. First straw poll since the tea party movement got started.

 

[barfo]

Not exactly true Denny,

CPAC had a straw poll last February.

Results:

Mitt Romney - 20 percent
Bobby Jindal - 14 percent
Ron Paul -13 percent
Sarah Palin - 13 percent
Newt Gingrich -10 percent
Mike Huckabee - 7 percent
Mark Sanford - 4 percent
Rudy Guiliani - 3 percent
Tim Pawlenty - 2 percent
Charlie Crist - 1 percent
Undecided - 9 percent

That was the first straw poll for the 2012 election.

I wonder why Mark Sanford isn't in the running anymore.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

I wonder why Mark Sanford isn't in the running anymore.

barfo

I wonder if you know that "barfo" is an anagram for "lmfao"

 

[mook]

I've never really seen them as "the Christian party" but rather the not explicitly "anti-Christian" party.

Huh? How, specifically, are Democrats "anti-Christian?"

I guess you could argue Obama is the first president (of either party) to even acknowledge atheism as a legitimate subset of America in an inaugural address. Acknowledging us atheists seems to be a big Christian no-no.

But there is not a single Democrat in the House or Senate who is a self-described atheist. Not one. (Appalling, really, when you consider that more than 10% of the US are atheists.)

If you don't see the Republican party as "the Christian party," then I don't know what to say. That's certainly my perception. You look at the states with the highest attendance of churches, and they're all red states. If I run into a white person who describes themselves as Christian within the first ten minutes, I have a pretty good idea they are Republican.

 

[MikeDC]

Huh? How, specifically, are Democrats "anti-Christian?"

I guess you could argue Obama is the first president (of either party) to even acknowledge atheism as a legitimate subset of America in an inaugural address. Acknowledging us atheists seems to be a big Christian no-no.

But there is not a single Democrat in the House or Senate who is a self-described atheist. Not one. (Appalling, really, when you consider that more than 10% of the US are atheists.)

If you don't see the Republican party as "the Christian party," then I don't know what to say. That's certainly my perception. You look at the states with the highest attendance of churches, and they're all red states. If I run into a white person who describes themselves as Christian within the first ten minutes, I have a pretty good idea they are Republican.

I think you're proving my point here.

Let me pick out a couple points here:
1. The fact that no Democrat "self-describes" as an athiest.
2. The fact that "If I run into a white person who describes themselves as Christian within the first ten minutes, I have a pretty good idea they are..."

and pose a simple narrative.

Many athiests and nominal Christians do not like Christians in general, jump to quick conclusions about them, stop thinking once they assign someone to a particular box, and do not like the fact that they feel uncomfortable self-describing as athiests. In general, these folks tend to the Democratic party.

And despite the big tent rhetoric of saying there are no "self-described athiests", there's an undercurrent of anger (It's appalling. I can't be me while you're being Johnny Bible Thumper over there) and fear (I have to pretend to be something I'm not, I can't describe myself the way I really would).

Actual, serious-minded Christians tend to know this, and therefore don't consider the Democrats any sort of option at all. Very few rational people want to belong to a group that they feel doesn't like or respect them.

 

[mook]

I think you're proving my point here.

Let me pick out a couple points here:
1. The fact that no Democrat "self-describes" as an athiest.
2. The fact that "If I run into a white person who describes themselves as Christian within the first ten minutes, I have a pretty good idea they are..."

and pose a simple narrative.

Many athiests and nominal Christians do not like Christians in general, jump to quick conclusions about them, stop thinking once they assign someone to a particular box, and do not like the fact that they feel uncomfortable self-describing as athiests. In general, these folks tend to the Democratic party.

And despite the big tent rhetoric of saying there are no "self-described athiests", there's an undercurrent of anger (It's appalling. I can't be me while you're being Johnny Bible Thumper over there) and fear (I have to pretend to be something I'm not, I can't describe myself the way I really would).

Actual, serious-minded Christians tend to know this, and therefore don't consider the Democrats any sort of option at all. Very few rational people want to belong to a group that they feel doesn't like or respect them.

Let's try switching your words around and see how it sounds:

Many Christians and nominal Christians do not like atheists in general, jump to quick conclusions about them, stop thinking once they assign someone to a particular box.

Thanks to Scientologists, we're now only the second most despised group in America. (Kind of depressing, if not for the fact that we're also the fastest growing religious group in America.)

Anyway, clearly only one party in this country is even willing to even acknowledge me and others like me. The Democrats. But I don't really see how that translates into persecution of Christians, particularly among Democratic leadership.

I think Democratic leaders are much more naturally dis-inclined to wear their religion on their shirt (the major exception being Bill Clinton) than Republicans. But Clinton, Obama, and Carter are clearly every-sunday-church-goers. They all are pretty darned sure that the bible is the one true voice of God, Christ is their savior, God actually listens to their prayers, etc. I suspect any of them are far more likely to sneer at me than you over religious beliefs.

 

[MikeDC]

Let's try switching your words around and see how it sounds:

Many Christians and nominal Christians do not like atheists in general, jump to quick conclusions about them, stop thinking once they assign someone to a particular box.

Agreed. I'm not passing any judgment. If I were a stringently believing athiest, I suppose I wouldn't be comfortable in the company of folks with strongly held religious views either.

Thanks to Scientologists, we're now only the second most despised group in America. (Kind of depressing, if not for the fact that we're also the fastest growing religious group in America.)

I tend to think this dislike is largely due to the fact ardent athiests have frequently attacked any show of Christianity in ways the average person finds absurd.

Anyway, clearly only one party in this country is even willing to even acknowledge me and others like me. The Democrats. But I don't really see how that translates into persecution of Christians, particularly among Democratic leadership.

Ardent athiests mostly probably don't see themselves as persecuting Christians and vice versa. Wolves also don't consider the moral implications of eating sheep.

I think Democratic leaders are much more naturally dis-inclined to wear their religion on their shirt (the major exception being Bill Clinton) than Republicans. But Clinton, Obama, and Carter are clearly every-sunday-church-goers. They all are pretty darned sure that the bible is the one true voice of God, Christ is their savior, God actually listens to their prayers, etc. I suspect any of them are far more likely to sneer at me than you over religious beliefs.

I suspect not. What are my religious beliefs, by the way?

 

[maxiep]

I wonder why Mark Sanford isn't in the running anymore.

barfo

He is, but he's now in the Argentinian Presidential straw poll.

 

[barfo]

What are my religious beliefs, by the way?

You worship Olive Oyl and believe that Popeye is not from this world.

barfo

 

[mook]

I tend to think this dislike is largely due to the fact ardent athiests have frequently attacked any show of Christianity in ways the average person finds absurd.

I don't think so. You find a much larger, louder group of atheists in England than you do in the US. Yet it's shocking to this American how little anybody there really cares one way or the other about religion. I've got several English friends who list "atheist" in their Facebook info under religion, there for all the world to see. I never see people do that here.

If your theory were correct, wouldn't you think they'd be much more disliked over there?

Ardent athiests mostly probably don't see themselves as persecuting Christians and vice versa. Wolves also don't consider the moral implications of eating sheep.

I think the term "persecution" gets used way too much in America. Christians feel "persecuted" because they can't have one of Charleton Heston's Ten Commandment promotional gimmicks in their town square. Atheists feel "persecuted" because somebody defaces one of their bulletin boards. Boo hoo, on both sides. (But especially on the Christian side--come on, you're the freakin' majority! It's like watching Shaq in his prime whine about too much contact in the paint.)

We've really become a pretty soft country where everyone with a petty grievance is "persecuted." When it's really just people disagreeing (admittedly sometimes in obnoxious ways).

I suspect not. What are my religious beliefs, by the way?

Do I get to choose? I'll go with "scientologist." Somebody around here has to be more persecuted than me.
*sniff sniff*

 

[MikeDC]

I don't think so. You find a much larger, louder group of atheists in England than you do in the US. Yet it's shocking to this American how little anybody there really cares one way or the other about religion. I've got several English friends who list "atheist" in their Facebook info under religion, there for all the world to see. I never see people do that here.

If your theory were correct, wouldn't you think they'd be much more disliked over there?

Not at all. As you say, the average "Christian" Englishman doesn't have much in the way of beliefs to challenge. Atheism is in many ways predominant amongst the European population, so in many respects the battle is already over. There aren't many true, serious Christians left to get worked up over things, and the official state religion thing casts it in a different light.

I think the conversation changes quite a bit with respect to England, however, if you broaden the discussion to other religions, especially Islam. There are A LOT of people very serious about their Islam in the UK, and they typically just don't openly communicate or engage the godless atheists. This itself changes the dynamic quite a bit when we talk about "loud and proud" atheists in the UK. They're often loud and proud when talking to other atheists or presumed atheists, but rarely engage in much discussion with the actual devout followers of the religions you've got there.

I tend to think that's a much less healthy dynamic for all involved than what we've got going on here.

I think the term "persecution" gets used way too much in America. Christians feel "persecuted" because they can't have one of Charleton Heston's Ten Commandment promotional gimmicks in their town square. Atheists feel "persecuted" because somebody defaces one of their bulletin boards. Boo hoo, on both sides. (But especially on the Christian side--come on, you're the freakin' majority! It's like watching Shaq in his prime whine about too much contact in the paint.)

We've really become a pretty soft country where everyone with a petty grievance is "persecuted." When it's really just people disagreeing (admittedly sometimes in obnoxious ways).

Do I get to choose? I'll go with "scientologist." Somebody around here has to be more persecuted than me.
*sniff sniff*

Who could say no?

 

[Denny Crane]

To me, the issue is the gradual scrubbing of anything religious from the public square. Typically done through new laws and court rulings.

It just seems silly that a christmas tree or manger on some public property (city hall, library, whatever) is any threat to the republic or society as a whole. It sure seemed that almost all people were happy before those things were scrubbed - christmas is a happy time for most people.

It seems silly that for decades, people in a small town where just about everyone knows each other and goes to church together, have said a prayer in the locker room before the big football game. I don't see the harm in it as long as nobody's forced to participate. Yet these things are being / have been scrubbed.

There's the gag factor - you can't speak freely about a non-destructive topic under many circumstances, if you're a govt. employee.

To complete this line of thinking, the bigger the government, the more govt. owns of the property, and the less places one can invoke what should be natural and 1st amendment rights. There's one party that pushes more govt. and one that (perhaps in words but not deeds) talks about smaller government.

It's no surprise where peoples' interests align.

 

[MrJayremmie]

I would give anything for Ron Paul to be my president...

 

[Sug]

It may be just me, but it seems the conservatives in this country are becoming more about small government (i.e., libertarian) than about social issues (i.e. "compassionate conservatism").

When the Republicans lose power they cry that government is busted and must be made smaller, when they are in power it is all about social issues. Frank Luntz 101.