GOP Fries Fish, Sucks Straws

Your GOP Fish Fry Straw Poll Results:

Herman Cain: 26%
Ron Paul: 25.7%
Rick Perry: 20%
Newt Gingrich: 18%
Mitt Romney: 6%
Michele Bachmann: 3.3%
All Others: 1%



  1. peach4handel says:

    These straw polls are the biggest waste of time. They mean nothing because people can bus folks in or buy a bunch of tickets to stack the votes. I got close to a half a dozen robob calls from RP folks,and Herman Cain brought in a bus to get the votes.

    • I think straw polls are a pretty good measure of what those that are paying attention to their government want…. the “American Idol” folks who happen to vote and are led around by a big gov advocating, bought and paid for, biased media,.. not so much.

      • Tiberius says:

        More than 1 million people will vote in the GOP primary next year (963k voted in ’08 with an active Dem primary as well) and I am supposed ot care about how 800+ people voted. Cain and Paul won’t get 20% combined next year in Georgia.

        The activist class is no more indictive of a primary result than the results if you asked Major League baseball players what the fans in the seats think of the game.

          • Tiberius says:

            Oh, Paul will get his 10% in March. But the idea that he will get enough of the actual vote to compete in the actual vote is laughable. This is a primary here in Georgia; it requires a different game plan than driving 250 people to straw polls to vote.

            Keep winning straw polls; you are good at it but dont think your numbers will merit you anything more in a primary.

    • Cain’s staff drove their bus down and brought material. Volunteers chartered their own bus as opposed to driving separately (25 people). This was a great gauge of showing organizational strength.

      The Ron Paul supporters were actually quite impressive. They’re activists, but without the typical in your face tactics they used 4 years ago. They did buy up a lot of tickets, but they had a good presence. That’s what this kind of thing is for.

      I’m really proud of the Cain organization and our volunteers. They’re good people. All the campaigns had the same opportunity, they just aren’t organized. The candidates that should be concerned the most are Bachmann and Romney. Bachmann had some presence, but was under what I thought would actually attend. Romney is obviously settling in for an air war, which makes sense since he’s got the big campaign coffers.

      Perry received the benefit of the new man on the block with all the media buzz. Time will tell what they assemble, which I’m sure they’ll be well organized.

      The big beneficiary was the GAGOP. It was a fun event which brought a lot of Georgians together on a hot August Saturday.

  2. Lo Mein says:

    Political Insider
    “Herman Cain edges out Ron Paul in Georgia GOP straw poll”
    2:59 pm August 27, 2011, by jgalloway

    Georgia native and tea party favorite Herman Cain edged out libertarian Ron Paul at the GOP annual fish fry down in Perry on Saturday.

    Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney finished a surprisingly distant fifth, behind Texas Gov. Rick Perry and another Georgia favorite, former U.S. House speaker Newt Gingrich. Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann also had a weak showing.

    Results were just phoned in by B.J. VanGundy, the party’s first vice president. Over 1100 tickets were sold, he said, and 890 votes were cast.

    The totals:

    – Herman Cain, 232 or 26 percent;
    – Ron Paul, 229 or 25.7 percent;
    – Rick Perry, 179 or 20 percent;
    – Newt Gingrich, 162 or 18 percent;
    – Mitt Romney, 51 or 6 percent;
    – Michele Bachman, 29 or 3 percent;
    – Rick Santorum, 4 or .4 percent
    – Jon Huntsman, 3 or .3 percent;
    – Thad McCotter, 1 or .1 percent;
    – Buddy Roemer, 0;
    – Gary Johnson, 0;

    – By Jim Galloway, Political Insider

  3. John Konop says:

    Herman Cain: 26%

    Has real business experience not much in government and politics. That will make it a very tough for him being an outsider playing a game built on being an insider.

    Ron Paul: 25.7%

    Could make some noise being the only pure ideologue for libertarians and his anti-NEOCON foreign policy will also play well with some in the party. I do not see him ever getting higher than mid 20’s but it could be enough especially if the social conservative vote splits. I do not think he will win but would not be surprised if he finishes a strong second or third.

    Rick Perry: 20%

    This is the guy Obama would love to run against. And has a good shot of winning because he makes good for good ratings for Rush, Erick……… If Obama wins you can than the talking heads, but hey what do they care because they won in their bank accounts.

    Newt Gingrich: 18%

    The real Newt could have added a lot to the debate. Instead he is a causality of trying to have deal with the crazy side of the party ie hate and anger over reason.

    Mitt Romney: 6%

    The guy Obama does not want to run against. Yet he sounds like Sybil on issues if she was running for office. Sadly he may fall like NEWT for the same reason.

    Michele Bachmann: 3.3%

    A female Rick Perry who is the only candidate with better hair than him and Obama is rooting for.

    Rick Santorum

    Why is he running?

    Jon Huntsman

    Telling the truth hurts sometimes!

  4. seekingtounderstand says:

    Obama wins because Republicans can not come up with a winning canidate. Maybe they don’t want to win until after Obamas second term. Republicans seem to want to fail.

  5. Goldwater Conservative says:

    Daniel Adams,

    You are the biggest idiot I have ever known. And I say this from my death bed…so they may be the last words you hear from me.

    Straw polls mean nothing. They are the biggest misrepresentation of any poll that is regularly conducted…they merely signal the most radical wing of the party they are held for.

    Compare the results of this poll to those of the national polls…that is how out of touch participants of this particular poll tend to lean.

    Herman Cain is a loser. Sure he turned Godfather’s Pizza around…at the end of a recession 25 years ago. Charlie Brown could have done that. Cain is not only irrelevant, his supporters signify Obama biggest probability of reelection. You people have gone too far to the right. The last time I watched somebody advocate the policies of Cain was Adolf Hitler, proposing economic isolation and the discrimination of a religion minority (Hitler did this with the Jewish, Cain does this with the Muslim).

    Cain could care less about America. All he wants is to be able to oppress the lower class so he can profit.

    Mankind deserves better. This is something I have learned over the past months. Mankind deserves to be allowed to live…not work overtime just to pay the bills, or for medicine, or for property, or for food or water. Mankind deserves better and until you figure out that your conservative/right-wing/capitalist ideals all revolve around the idea that it is ok to deprive children of the means to develop to their fullest potential you people, democrats included (since that is as far as your primitive minds allow you to think), will never reach mankind’s potential. You will remain advocates of a slow dissension toward fascism.

    You want any kind of proof? I had to fly 11 hours to Sweden to receive the best care available in the world for pancreatic cancer treatment. The US has sold its population out. Quality care is not the end, profit is the end. US hospital and surgeons only care about profit at the expense of quality healthcare. How is your ridiculous capitalism working out? Ask Howard Schultz. It is a race to the bottom and for those of you still stuck in the middle class it is too late. You think it is bad now, wait until your employers give you the ultimatum to take pay/benefit cuts, quit or be downsized. This is a global economy and you asked for it…little did you know that you were not talented or willing enough to work for low wages to compete.

    My last statement from Earth: you made your bed, be prepared to sleep in it…especially if it is in a mortgage defaulted house that you can not pay for. I am rich and you are not. I made my money keeping you people stupid and just satisfied enough. I win, you lose. That is right-wing conservatism at its best!

    • Rick Day says:

      I love it when the meds kick in.

      I’m with the Wild Man here. I would rather die, than get a liver transplant and I have some of the best coverage available. I would not give one penny willingly to The System™ for the sham of what we call ‘healthcare’ in the US.

      I’d rather go to China or India, where Big Pharma can not buy their system, and helping people is the priority over helping the bottom line. At least there I can get stem cell therapy without all of YOUR POILITICALLY SUPPORTED APOLOGIST JINGOIST, IDIOTIC CRAP about “they’s killin’ the babbys” !!

      Like the Goldster, my clock is running faster than the rest of you. I have no TIME or PATIENCE for all this MUCKING up you GOPers have allowed to happen under your ‘majority watch’. I CARE about what world my grandkids are inheriting, and you guys are busy out gingaflexing each other to jesus to notice.

      Sometimes I feel I’d be better off dead, than watch YOUR people dismantle the country that was the United States. LOOK AT THAT LIST…hail your mighty leaders.

      /I’m out

    • GC,
      I’m very sorry to hear you’re not well. I honestly hope you stick around for a long time… if for nothing else, long enough to learn just how wrong you are…. and then you could help me convince others.

      If you were paying more attention you’d know I’d never advocate for government backed discrimination of anyone. I advocate for Liberty, both personal and financial. I too have huge problems as well with some of Cain’s positions, TARP, support of the FED and his Muslim-phobia, to name a few. But his less regulations, tax reform and lower spending ideas I could get behind…. So as you should know, I’m more of a Ron Paul fan.

      As for your “proof” statement, you do know that the Health Care industry is the most regulated industry in the US, don’t you? No wonder it’s failing folks.

      As for Capitalism/Free Enterprise vs. Socialism/Totalitarianism…. here’s a short video my friend Jason Pye recently highlighted.

      Again, I hate to hear you’re in bad health… I have often explained to people, libertarians are not heartless… as a matter of fact, I find that we and the everyday “librals” usually want the same end… we just KNOW that their political philosophy is flawed and will result in doing the opposite of what we’re all wanting.

      Our Country’s government has never been larger, more centralized and has never spent more… therefore, our country’s current state of affairs is all the proof I need to support my political agenda and why I know less gov is better and more freedom IS the correct answer…. and the new and growing numbers of active political participants, as the straw poll shows, know this too.

    • Cassandra says:

      Godspeed, Goldwater Conservative and Rick Day.

      Your posts have proved prophetic, and though I don’t always agree, you both express well thought out ideas. You have made the PP community a more interesting and enlightened place.

      My thoughts of courage and strength for you both,


  6. troutbum70 says:

    So why are you all so afraid of Herman Cain? Maybe because he doesn’t look like most of us on this website? Scared because we could actually have a presidential candidate that looks like Obama. Hate to tell you this but the Cain camp didn’t bus in a bunch of people. They had to actually make stops to pick up enough people to cover the bus. And guess what else, today’s fish fry looked like your typical country club republican get together. In other words, extremely white. Except for Ashley Bell and the 8th District Chairwoman who spoke. Pretty much lily. So I guess somewhere in there, Herman had what it takes to appeal to close to 900 people today. And no, Iowa doesn’t count since it’s a political blackmail of “pay to play” for a state with only 68 counties. The person there that should have gotten the most attention was the Command Master Sergeant who received a new wheel chair to help him get around.

    Like it or not, Herman Cain would take Obama to the woodshed and would actually appeal to the Indies out there who want someone who isn’t so full of themselves from sooo many years in politics that they think the country needs them to save it from destruction. Herman would also be able to reach out to the older generations of blacks who long ago abandoned the GOP. So should we just go ahead and march in step with the cowboy from Texas who ran Al Gore’s campaign, or the guy who can’t carry the South due to his religion and the fact of he produced his on mini Obama Care? Or wait maybe the guy who thinks the Fed is out to get everyone? Oh yeah, don’t forget the former Speaker who never really went after Clinton for his transgressions since he was committing his own behind wife number two’s bank. If it were a simple case of couldn’t find the right woman till “Number 3”, I could work with that and even support him. I’ve seen him in the class room and the man is full of amazing knowledge.

    Mr. Konop says Herman can’t win since it’s a game built on being the ultimate insider. If that’s truly the case; then it’s high time we work to change the system. And for you Ron Paul supporters, don’t give me any bull “manure” about the fact that he was a Fed Reserve Chair. So what!!! Look at what one man did who had never worked in the private sector, was a “community organizer” and barely could manage to cast a vote during his short time in the Senate. We in the Republican Party could stand to learn a thing or two from how his campaign was run!

    Herman is the right type of guy who could win a broad range of voters. So what if he’s not polished or hasn’t developed the 30 second sound bite like the other candidates who have spent years in public office living off the government teat. It’s high time we start breaking the mold of what our typical candidate looks and sounds like. That’s why Herman will get my vote and that of my wife who is far from a political person. Heck she wanted him to run long before he even announced.

    I’m a Republican who’s always been skeptical of those who went from Blue to Red, except for Reagan. The respect I have for our elected officials drops significantly when it’s preceded or follows “longest serving elected official.” So yeah, I tuned out our two Senators today. I think the Tea Party is great but their lack of a central structure will ultimately be it’s downfall. I live in a county where in less than a decade, if we don’t do something about reaching out to those who don’t look or sound like us, we’re doomed even though it wouldn’t seem that way looking at our delegation to the Gold Dome. And yeah, in my opinion that includes the Log Cabin Republicans. Yeah, I know this may be where I differ from Herman.

    So if you want a candidate that the Dems will fear, support and vote for Herman Cain. He’ll have Obama looking like the typical “deer caught in the headlights” with the debates. Remember, this is the man that called Clinton out at a national townhall. If you want to see Obama celebrating his second term of office support any of the other candidates running for office right now.

    • Harry says:

      Good comments, thanks. You actually convinced me to get back on the Cain Train. Nobody will ever agree with anybody 100% and I certainly didn’t agree with Herman on his Islam comments, but I believe he reconsidered that. Herman Cain has the ability to lead this nation post-Obama.

    • Charlie says:

      Sorry, but I have difficulty with you playing the race card when Cain so freely plays the religion card. Cain consciously and deliberately played the Sharia law card, and the Mormon card. In doing so, he’s disqualifed himself from serious contention.

    • DriveByDawg says:

      Thanks for this post Trout!

      I organized that “bus” trip. These were GOP activists and supporters of Mr. Cain who were coming down anyway. We just thought it would be fun to make that long trip together. Call it an over-sized carpool. And with the economy as it is, we are always looking for ways to save money. Everyone paid for their OWN fish fry tickets and paid their OWN way on the bus.

      We had the good luck/timing of having the official Herman Cain tour bus in Atlanta this week while he is in Israel with the Glen Beck Restoring Courage event. The staff offered to come down with us and of course we took them up on the offer.

      This is what an organized campaign does. We showed it in Macon at the Convention and we’ve been showing it ever since. We have had coverage at as many events as we could and have often been the only campaign there. Until last week Mr. Cain has won EVERY straw poll at these GOP events. So, I’m sorry if this bugs some of the frequent posters on this site but I won’t apologize for having GREAT volunteers and ardent supporters. We call it grassroots.

      • KD_fiscal conservative says:

        I won’t apologize for having GREAT volunteers and ardent supporters. We call it grassroots.

        Call it what every you want, but there is ZERO chance of y’all winning anything of significance(like the GOP primary election…or even a scientific poll). You can come back to this page a few weeks(or months) when Cain drops out and see that I told you so.

          • KD_fiscal conservative says:

            Huh? “Candidate of choice” How do you know who my candidate of choice is, heck *I* don’t even know who that is.

            I’m watching Perry and Romney closely but am still waiting b/f I commit 100% and start to donate/meet with/fund-raise for to any candidate yet. The sad thing is, I liked Cain, till he starting opening his mouth…

  7. John Konop says:

    I wonder if this was in play at all at the event?

    …..Mitt Romney vs. Rick Perry 2012: It’s personal

    It’s the worst-kept secret of the GOP presidential primary: Mitt Romney and Rick Perry have never liked each other very much.

    And the animosity could play out on the national scene in the coming weeks when Romney, the precarious front-runner, and Perry, who is rising in the polls, take the stage together for a series of fall debates………

    Read more:

    Read more:

    • Ken says:

      Hi John,

      I spoke with quite a few people at the fish fry, and most people were discussing redistricting or just catching up with old friends. I wasn’t privy to any discussions regarding any animosity between any of the candidates.

      It was a large crowd who paid much more attention to each other than to any of the speakers. That’s how these things usually go anyway.

  8. saltycracker says:

    Straw houses are not built of stone….. 🙂

    Politics is what is in play. Vote our end of the spectrum and we’re “understanding” (to some personal point) of religious bigotry or bankruptcies/extravagant habits or even more local, roles in bank failures or gaming Masters tickets…..

    There are no absolutes so we’ll do the best we can, with what we know & hope more agree with our side – R’s & D’s….

  9. James Fannin says:

    Congrats to Herman and his people for demonstrating the organization skills to pull off this victory. Congrats to the Ron Paul supporters for their energy and perseverance to come in a close second. I listened closely to Ron Paul on Fox this morning and frankly, only Newt Gingrich could go toe-to-toe with him on the issues. Seriously if Chris Wallace asked Rick Perry about the Austrian School of economics as he did Ron Paul thus morning, Governor Perry would think he was talking about the former governor of California. I used to think Ron Paul was just a distraction but increasingly listening to him is becoming my guilty pleasure. He made the point today that there is a reason active duty military give him more money than they do to the other candidates – they recognize they bear the brunt of all these globalist national security decisions. I hope both he and Newt hang in there and inform this debate.

    • ives says:

      The Chris Wallace/Ron Paul interview you mentioned was very good this morning. For anyone interested, here is a link to it:

      • James Fannin says:

        @Ives. I think the biggest mistake the main stream media make as it comes to the two Texans in the race is their assumption that Perry is the candidate who appeals to the Tea Party. That shows how little they follow the Tea Party. One of the fundamental principles of members of Tea Party is their “throw the bums out” distaste for all career politicians regardless of party. Perry, if elected, would enter the White House as the longest continuously serving politician in American history having done little else but politics since 1984. He’s pretty good on guns and was good on the 10th Amendment until he cravenly reversed himself on Gay Marriage and decided the federal government should decide for the states after all. I liked his original “leave it to the states” position before his political advisors told him what he needed to say.

        In Texas,he was certainly no Tea Party favorite during the last governor’s race. The Tea Party ran an undistinguished candidate against him in the Republican primary who might have actually forced a run off if her candidacy hadn’t imploded when she wouldn’t distance herself from the claim that America was responsible for the 9/11 attack. When the dust settled, the controversial Tea Party candidate picked up 19 percent of the votes in the Republican primary against long serving governor. Unlike Perry, Ron Paul and his son, Rand Paul are legitimate Tea Party favorites – and the should be. Anyone who watched Perry and Paul at the CPAC Convention will recall which one lit up the room. Ron Paul doesn’t change his views from week-to-week and he believes to his core that we need less government not more. I am not ready throw my support behind Ron Paul but as a soldier, I do relate to all those military personnel who send this guy a check.

    • Doug Grammer says:


      I am simply unimpressed with 35K raised from military personnel. I respect our men and women in uniform, but it looks like someone went out after military donors just so they could make a press release and a talking point….just as you have used it here.

      • KD_fiscal conservative says:

        As Grammer and others on here show, hard-core partisan GOPers don’t really like Paul. Personally, I like listen to him,he is a bit unrealistic at times, but still he is very powerful in the Repub. party GOP. He has a cult like following, and I think he could single handedly bring down the GOP nominee during the general election, if he wanted to run third party, considering no matter what happens the race will be close and Paul taking some GOP nominee votes will likely give BO 4 more years. Its probably not going to happen, but he is 70+, his kids are grown, and he could piss off a bunch of repubs., and retire from his long career in politics after shacking things up.

        • Charlie says:

          The one thing most likely to stop him from that is Rand’s politicial future. He’s not burdened by his father’s anti-semetic past, his decades of non-accomplishment, nor his fraudulent stance on voting against every budget but then getting earmarks out of each of them (Wild Shrimp Anyone?).

          Rand has a good future in the GOP. Having a dad who handed Obama 4 more years wouldn’t be terribly helpful to it.

        • ives says:

          Yeah, I don’t think he would run 3rd party at this point. I believe here in Georgia, if he is on the primary ballot for the Republican Party, they wouldn’t even count his votes if he then ran as a 3rd party in the general. It’s just not feasible even if he wanted to do it. Charlie seems to have Ron confused with someone else if he is accusing him of anti-semitism. Ron Paul’s biggest influences were Jewish economists of the Austrian school.

          • seenbetrdayz says:

            The anti-semitism claim is just a thing Charlie does. I think most everyone overlooks it because those accusations were debunked in 2008. Pay no mind.

            • Charlie says:

              Stating “I had no knowlege that a newletter that I owned for years that ran editorials under my name which made anti-semetic comments.” isn’t exactly debunking.

              • Cassandra says:

                Charlie’s point is meritorious.

                I had never heard reports that Ron Paul supported anti-Semitic notions so I dug around and found The New Republic article excerpted below. This cements my view that while many of Ron Paul’s economic points resonate, he is a bitter, crusty, angry, guy: File under “Dammit”


                “But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul’s name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him–and reflected his views.

                What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays.

                In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing–but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.”

                Damn shame, he will never rise past this, and it will probably stink Rand.

                • ives says:

                  Anyone who follows Ron Paul would know immediately that those newsletters were not written by him. He has a very long public record of writings, statements, speeches before Congress, and interviews that prove that his views are diametrically opposed to those demonstrated in those newsletters. You can see from the countless hours of interviews with him available on line, that not only are his views antithetical to the insidious language of those newsletters, but his style is nothing like them as well.

                • ives says:

                  Also, given the fact that the article from The New Republic you are using as your source, includes a photoshopped photo of Ron Paul with a confederate hat and tie added, makes me suspicious that they may not be a unbiased source.

                  • Cassandra says:

                    Obviously the photo is a joke, ives. Perhaps very bad taste, but obviously humor along the lines of Stewart/Colbert. I think most readers see the photo as a parody.

                    So the newsletters are an oppo-hoax to discredit Ron Paul? I hope you are right, we need Ron Paul’s voice in some capacity.

                    Seems Ron would squelched the ‘views antithetical’ to his own and protested written, distributed ‘insidious language.’ I know I would be denying the newsletters and suing those responsible for such slander.

                    Seems strange, implausibly deniable, but possible I suppose. Who would do such a thing?

                    • ives says:

                      One of the things that makes the newsletter excerpts not line up with Paul’s style, is to take for example the one that accuses MLK of private sexual indiscretions. Ron Paul never makes these kind of personal attacks, but tends to stick strictly to ideas. Interviewers often will try to get him to comment personally on the other candidates, Obama, or Bernanke, etc. and he usually steers it back to the realm of ideas and philosophy. You never hear him make negative statements about people personally, and especially not about their personal lives. When I have heard him speak personally about MLK, it was to praise him for his ideas and for his methods of non-violent resistance.

                      The other thing about Ron Paul, which some see as a fault, is that he doesn’t spend much effort on policing what is done in his name. For example, currently there are thousands of websites put up by supporters under his name, one supposed supporter made news recently for putting an article asking for people who had slept with Rick Perry to come forward, another tactic that Ron would find distasteful, and for which he got some negative media attention, and his response is that media shouldn’t reward such behavior with the spotlight. I know apparently the newsletters had more of a official connection to him at some point, but it doesn’t surprise me that he was busy delivering babies and wasn’t paying attention to those mailers. As you can see in the 2008 campaign, there was a lot of freedom in the campaign, which can lead to a few bad apples giving him a bad name, but it also leads to great creativity, with supporters coming up with all sorts of ideas, including the launching of a Ron Paul blimp. He runs his campaign in the same way he believes the government ought to be run, believing more in influence rather than in ruling by force.

                • Red Phillips says:

                  Kirchick, who wrote the TNR article, has become a bit of a specialist in sleazy Cultural Marxist SPLC style hatchet pieces of this sort. You should look at the Justin Raimondo reply (I’ll look for a link.). Many of the nuggets that Kirchick dug out are just that, nuggets intended for shock value. In context they have much less of the desired effect, but Kirchick wasn’t interested in context. He was interested in smearing.

                  With regard to conspiracy theories, militia movements, etc. people like Paul who distinguish themselves, in broad terms, by their distance from the current regime and reigning orthodoxy are always going to attract people who are also distinguished by their distance from the regime and the reigning orthodoxy even if they are different in kind. (People who are different in kind but similar in degree.) This is why Kucinich on the left has more than his fair share of left-wing 9/11 truthers and GE is the font of all evil conspiracy types even though he doesn’t personally make an issue of such things.

                  I am not much of a conspiracy theorist, but I have more use for a conspiracy theorist who recognizes that the current regime is hopelessly flawed and in need of fundamental change, than I do a non-conspiracy theorist who thinks that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the current regime that can’t be tweaked by electing more Republicans and lowering marginal tax rates or whatever.

                  Likewise, what really bothers a lot of centrist about Paul is not what they see as the undesirable elements that support him (they are more of an affirmation) but his overall distance from the current center. Ron Paul represents a fundamental challenge to the legitimacy of the regime that Perry or Santorum or whoever does not.

                  This is why, many of these people, as I suggested in my comment below, view “extremism” qua “extremism” with a sort of visceral disdain that goes well beyond policy specifics. They are emotionally coming to the defense of the regime against dissidents whether they realize it or not.

                  I think this is an important dynamic, and it would be nice if we could discuss it on a rational level.

                  • Lo Mein says:

                    Good luck with that, Red. Those who support centrism for the sake of centrism are more cultish, and far more insidious in their Lex Luthor-like scheming against Constitutionalists, than any “extremist” ever was. It is their type, rather than “Paulbots” or Kucinich-types or whatever, that will lead to the destruction of America, economically, politically, militarily, etc. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is a vice, not a virtue; and “extreme centrists” sho nuff love them some moderation.

                  • Lo Mein says:

                    I would be interested in hearing Buzz’s response to Tom Mullen’s rebuttal, above. It’s short but thorough, and certainly seems to decimate Lord’s “argument”. In fact, I would hope Lord would now issue a retraction and an apology for his illogical line of “reasoning”.

                • Red Phillips says:

                  Buzz, the Lord article is historically and philosophically illiterate.

                  If people want to argue that interventionism is necessary and proper and non-interventionism is dangerous, then fine. I disagree. I’ll argue the issue vigorously, but at leasst that is a plausible position. But don’t tell me that interventionism is the historically and philosophically conservative position and non-interventionism is the liberal position because it just ain’t so and to make that kind of statement, as Lord and others do, demonstrates serious ignorance of both history and political philosophy.

                  Non-intervetionism is the foreign policy that flows naturally from the authentic conservative mindset. Someone may think it an unwise policy, but that does not mean it isn’t conservative. The idea that America has some special or unique role to play in maintaining global order is a modern ideological imposition. You may think it is right and necessary, but conservative it ain’t. It has more in common with Revolutionary France or the Soviet Union, both of which felt it was their duty to bring enlightenment to the rest of us benighted masses, than it does conservatism properly understood.

                  • seenbetrdayz says:


                    I highly recommend that people go to youtube and search for a video titled: “The George Bush you forgot”. (there is a version that has been edited and includes some cheezy music,, but there’s another version that doesn’t, if you prefer).

                    It was just about 10 years ago that non-interventionism and humble foreign policies were actually valued as a plank of the GOP platform. Now, some people argue that “9/11 changed everything”, but I think if the attack ended in us giving up almost everything we believe in, then, from my perspective, we took something from ourselves that the terrorists couldn’t take from us. (You can’t steal/destroy another man’s principles. In fact, in some cases, it may be all he’s left holding onto. And we gave that stuff up.).

                • John Konop says:

                  In all due respect Buzz, the NEOCON foreign policy of being the policemen of the world has roots from the left of the political spectrum. At the end it is more about balance in my opinion and being humble. A key concept in the book “Art of War” is the greatest generals you never heard of, because they avoided the war and won via smart strategy without using a weapon.
                  Not all situations call for the same strategy, but I agree with the Powell doctrine force should not be the first strategy. Also if we use force you want to get in and out quickly. You never want to be in a situation of being perceived as on occupier of another country. It is usually does not now work out well ie straight out of “Art of War”.

                  ……Michael Lind, a self-described former neoconservative, wrote:[20]
                  Neoconservatism… originated in the 1970s as a movement of anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey and Henry (‘Scoop’) Jackson, many of whom preferred to call themselves ‘paleoliberals.’ [After the end of the Cold War]…

                  many ‘paleoliberals’ drifted back to the Democratic center… Today’s neocons are a shrunken remnant of the original broad neocon coalition. Nevertheless, the origins of their ideology on the left are still apparent. The fact that most of the younger neocons were never on the left is irrelevant; they are the intellectual (and, in the case of William Kristol and John Podhoretz, the literal) heirs of older ex-leftists.

                  In his semi-autobiographical book, Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea, Irving Kristol cited a number of influences on his own thought, including not only Max Shachtman and Leo Strauss but also the skeptical liberal literary critic Lionel Trilling. The influence of Leo Strauss and his disciples on neoconservatism has generated some controversy, with Lind asserting:[21]
                  For the neoconservatives, religion is an instrument of promoting morality. Religion becomes what Plato called a noble lie. It is a myth which is told to the majority of the society by the philosophical elite in order to ensure social order… In being a kind of secretive elitist approach, Straussianism does resemble Marxism. These ex-Marxists, or in some cases ex-liberal Straussians, could see themselves as a kind of Leninist group, you know, who have this covert vision which they want to use to effect change in history, while concealing parts of it from people incapable of understanding it……..


                • “When it comes to foreign policy, Ron Paul and his supporters are not conservatives. This is important to understand when one realizes that Paul’s views are, self-described, “non-interventionist.” ”

                  Ahh yes, the old conservative position of we must conserve our position as world police no matter what the cost. A trillion here and a trillion there and pretty soon you’re talking real money. I’m personally rather tired of the “conservative” label as everyone seems to have a different definition of what a conservative is.

              • seenbetrdayz says:

                Uh, yeah, it is, unless you intend to hold one individual accountable for the actions of another.

                I hope no one ever plants drugs on your property. ‘Cause we all know that’d be your fault, lol.

      • ives says:

        Well, the same was true in the 2008 campaign primary. Paul received more donations from active duty military people than all the other Republican candidates combined. There was no effort to go after particular donors. I don’t even know how you could easily seek that out – given the fact that these donations came in the form of lots of individuals giving small amounts. When it was discovered that this was the case during the 2008 campaign, it came as a surprise to the campaign. Now, of course, I wouldn’t say that this means that if you took a vote today across the active duty military that Ron Paul would get more votes than all the other candidates combined. Ron Paul is unusual in that if you plan on voting for him, you are pretty likely to send money to him. I have voted all of my adult life, but I had never considered giving to any campaign before Ron Paul’s 2008 run. While I think it does help that Paul served 5 years in the military and that he would respect the Constitution when it comes to only the Congress declaring wars, there are a number of factors that could also contribute to his getting so much more than the other candidates. For example, there are a higher percentage of young people in active military service, and maybe that age bracket is not normally prone to give to political candidates in general, but Ron Paul motivates people that are not likely to give to political campaigns to give to his. So you could dismiss this figure in a similar way to dismissing straw polls, that it is simply an anomaly and not necessarily indicative of how the voting would go, but it is still a remarkable anomaly that does say something, even if it is difficult to put your finger on exactly what that something is.

        • seenbetrdayz says:

          “I have voted all of my adult life, but I had never considered giving to any campaign before Ron Paul’s 2008 run.”

          That’s kind of how my situation was. I never even voted though.

          This is a good thing that Ron Paul has going for him: He energizes people who absolutely loathe politics and normally wouldn’t touch the stuff with a ten-foot pole. There are a lot of people like that out there, who don’t even vote, so his support has great potential for growth.

          The problem is that these folks don’t understand the political system any more than they like it; for example, they don’t know enough to get involved in primaries and get Dr. Paul the nomination. It was a hard lesson to learn in 2008, but perhaps that will change.

      • seenbetrdayz says:

        Well, that’s an interesting theory. Although, there’s another more plausible one, which is that our troops are just ready to come home. (I mean, it has been ten years, after all).

  10. ives says:

    The fish fry was a lot of fun. Thanks to all who put it together and to all who came out. We had some great conversations and enjoyed meeting new people. Congrats to the Cain supporters for edging us Ron Paul supporters out by 3 votes.

    Everyone who keeps stating the obvious that these straw polls aren’t a good indication of the primary results should lighten up and try to enjoy life a little. This straw poll does, at least, indicate which candidates inspire enthusiasm among the grassroots.

    Nobody is going to persuade us Ron Paulers to give up the dream because you say “It isn’t going to happen”. Reagan was greeted by the same sort of naysayers in 1976 when he ran against Ford – and Ron Paul was one of a very few elected officials to endorse Reagan in that primary. The American revolutionists were greeting with the same sort of naysayers when they dared to throw off the yoke of the British empire with the Declaration of Independence. History is full of revolutionaries who didn’t listen to the words of wisdom from the status quo. So pardon us if we don’t let your cynicism spoil our enthusiasm. We are going to keep trying to spread the idea of liberty until it catches on. We are not just trying to win an election, but to change the mindset of the people so that they will demand in all of their leaders the kind of devotion to freedom and the Constitution that we have found so inspiring in Ron Paul.

    • Tiberius says:

      Oh, I am enjoying life so much I chose not to drive down to Perry and roast in the heat. A beer with apolitical friends is by far more fun. 🙂

        • Tiberius says:

          If you are posting or reading peach pundit then you are not apolitical by my definition. You know the types I mean—they know the Prez and maybe the Gov, may be able to name their Congressman and maybe a state legislator if they have a calendar on their refreigerator from said politician. They will never go to a town hall meeting, they will bedgrudginly watch the news, they dont read political book or watch political shows and they vote more out of principle or duty than any real passion. And, despite all of that, they have deep opinions although they have little education or knowledge on the subject.

          You know, 80% of the public.

  11. Red Phillips says:

    I love it when the charge against Paul is that he can’t win as if that is some sort of moral flaw. That he can’t win, if true, speaks well of Paul, not ill. It means he refuses to pander. He won’t tell people in Iowa he loves corn subsidies and people in New England he loves Amtrak or whatever. Primaries and particularly straw polls are the time to support the candidate closest to you on the issues. If he “can’t win” because he is a true Constitutionalist, then that is the fault of the voters, not Paul, and it would mean us Constitutionalists have more work to do. Since when did centrism for its own sake become a virtue?

    • Hank Reardan says:

      It was great meeting you Red . I had a good time seeing some great activists down in Perry.
      I did feel sorry for Newt. Noo not really .I thought the interaction between groups was great. The GOP Chairwomen even came over and had her picture taken with the Ron Paul people. I know some of the Ron Paul people went over to the Herman Cain table and told them what a great job they had done .One thing I did notice the Ron Paul people brought their kids and made it a family event more so then the other candidates. I had a great time but I will still be voting Libertarian in nov.

      • Red Phillips says:

        Thanks. I didn’t really pick up on much bad blood either. I think most of the rancor is between dug in factions on the internet. Everyone seemed to treat us as if we belonged. No one was trying to engage us in an argument over foreign policy or whatever from what I saw. We had one fellow at the booth out front who was broadly sympathetic but wanted to argue about age and media image, but that was about it. The enduring legacy of the Ron Paul campaigns, if he doesn’t win, is that he will have normalized a certain cluster of issues (most notably the Fed, sound money and non-interventionism) within the GOP and movement conservadom.

        • Cassandra says:

          You most certainly do belong. If anything Ron Paul has helped awaken the sleeping American public to the fact that there is a malevolent fiscal storm brewing.

          Both sides showed terrible statesmanship trying to resolve serious long-term, philosophical issues facing the US. Financial issues such as where we cut spending will be front and center before the Holidays and on into next year.

          People feelings range from apoplectic to resignation at how the GOP/Dems are handling issues of National importance: Healthcare, debt, war, defense, etc.

          The TEA Party, Ron Paul, and even Dennis Kucinich supporters indicate how unhappy people are with the GOP/Dem inability to lead.

  12. Three Jack says:

    newt is beginning a comeback and will continue to gain support as more debates are held. he is by far the best of the bunch when it comes to debating serious issues where most candidates rely upon pre-tested soundbites — bachman is the poster gal for this tactic. i am not a newthead by any stretch, but he is starting to look a little better when judged against the lackluster field of gopers currently running.

    john konop wrote of newt’s status — “Instead he is a causality of trying to have deal with the crazy side of the party ie hate and anger over reason.” please define hate john. is it ‘hate’ to support lower spending, less government and tax reform? those are the issues driving the ‘haters’ who make up the majority of tea party activists.

    • Hank Reardan says:

      Well that comeback did not start in Perry this weekend. He was the only candidate there and still could not break the top three in his home state. If he is building it most be for the 2016 elections

    • Red Phillips says:

      Newt is good talking about policy stuff because he is very intelligent and is a policy wonk. He has actually thought about all these issues, while most of the other candidates must rely on formulaic responses. The problem is that he is not and never has been fundamentally a conservative. He is a free-market futurist. (He is much more Toffler than Burke.) This was very evident when he waxed eloquent about the space program.

      • Harry says:

        According to Steve Anthony, a political consultant and lecturer at Georgia State University, who was a student of Gingrich in 1972..
        “He was liberal. In ’72, I wake up one morning. I get the Carrollton paper, and it says, ‘Local professor to head [Richard] Nixon re-elect.’ I went into his office, and I put the paper on his desk, and I say, ‘What the hell is this?’ ” Anthony recounted.
        “He said, ‘I have a plan. I’m going to be in Congress one day, and I’m going to be in Congress as a Republican. Because that’s where this state is headed. Furthermore, I’m going to be speaker one day.’ ”

      • Ken says:


        He is much more Toffler than Burke.

        I’ve never thought of it that way, but it’s a good point. Of course he was influenced by Toffler and Nesbitt, but there is some Burke, too, I think.

        Newt is, like Burke, a policy wonk and a pragmatist – and I don’t necessarily mean those as bad things. I’m a huge fan of Burke and he got things done because he understood that politics is a tool for wielding power: “I know of nothing sublime which is not some modification of power.”

    • drjay says:

      the paul camp does seem more disciplined and organized than t was in 08, to be sure–as a point reference, i would mention however that phil gramm won about 20 straw polls back in ’95-’96…so there is still a long way to go before any actual voting that counts occurs…

      • Lo Mein says:

        August 2007: Old Man McCain down 21 points to GOP Superhero Giuliani:
        Rudy Giuliani: 32%
        Fred Thompson: 19%
        Mitt Romney: 14%
        John McCain: 11%

        August 2011?

  13. saltycracker says:

    Ron Paul has some good ideas like calling for an audit of all the gold. But using scare tactics like suggesting that there is none in Ft. Knox, West Point or Denver as the Feds have the ability to sell or swap it all to foreign countries might be a bit much.

    By Fed estimates at current prices there is supposed to be around $400 billion on hand – not much considering our debt. It may be just a monetary insurance thing on the full faith & credit of the U.S. taxpayers, but if we all spent 40% more than we earn every year and promised to cut back to only spending 35% more, maybe we need scaring. The dollar continues to weaken in the world exchanges.

Comments are closed.