How is it that Ron Paul who runs as a Republican, but is thought of as a Libertarian could win the Presidential straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) for the second year in a row last week?
What does that say about the attendees of the conference? Even though I agree with some of what Ron Paul says, I wouldn’t want him to be our President. I suspect that all the individuals who were contemplating a run said some things I might agree with but most probably wouldn’t get my vote either. The candidates who are thought to have a chance in the real world finished up the track in the straw poll. The talking heads in the Republican Party give some chance to Mitt Romney but I doubt many would bet any money on him. The problem with the straw poll is that the viable candidates fared so poorly.
I guess my concern about CPAC is the fact that there is clearly a disconnect between the attendees and the mainstream conservative voters so why should we care what happens there? If I were a serious candidate, I might pass on an event that didn’t reflect what is happening in the real world.
If the American Conservative Union expects to be relevant to Conservatives they need to clarify the mission of the conference. If Ron Paul supporters can skew the straw poll two years in a row, the conference is either not drawing real conservative attendees or Ron Paul is an authentic conservative and those other guys are pretenders.
I am not a member of the American Conservative Union, but I agree 100% with their stated Principles and the supplementary Sharon Statement. So I am a little disappointed that a renowned event like CPAC even bothers with a straw poll. Maybe a better idea would be to let the speakers have their say and just leave it at that.
Do We Grade Presidents on the Curve?
by Steve DanaI don’t think there is a Diplomacy 101 class that will prepare you to deal with crises like we are having in Egypt, North Africa and the Islamic countries east to Saudi Arabia so it’s understandable that President Obama’s diplomatic A-Team are not All Stars; some wouldn’t even make varsity. I guess that since there weren’t any proven diplomats in the Clinton Administration there weren’t any Obama could bring back onto the current team except lightweights.
Like every President, Obama will be judged years later on how he and his team deal with this whole affair. I don’t think there is a right answer and a wrong answer when you have to make decisions in the moment with the information available at your disposal in that moment until time passes and in hind sight we can judge right and wrong. (It won’t keep us from second guessing him though.)
It’s unfortunate that our states-people are having to learn on the job that what we say matters on the world stage. If it weren’t so important in the politics of the world, it would be comical watching James Clapper and Leon Panetta fumble with their testimony before Congress.
They want so much to say that the Muslim Brotherhood is a harmless organization with only a few bad apple terrorists on their fringe because that fits their political goals, but the truth is the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization with a few harmless peaceniks on their fringe. How do Clapper and Panetta justify taking a paycheck for such incompetence.
If there wasn’t so much evidence that refutes their testimony we would normally accept their testimony as the gospel and that would be dangerous. Thank God that these guys are so obviously incompetent or creatively prevaricating that they have no credibility what-so-ever.
The Obama Team is not winning any points for diplomacy after their first two years in office and this Egypt crisis does not bode well for the next two years. I hope our country survives.
In the interest of full disclosure, I did not take that diplomacy class either but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Posted in Foreign Affairs | Leave a Comment »