Sunday, March 17, 2013

How Bad Did Rand Paul Bomb at CPAC?

As part of CPAC 2013 polling, two questions were asked about drones. The results showed and overwhelming distaste for the use of drones against US citizens.  70% of all attendees said they oppose use of drones to spy on US citizens. When it came to a vote on killing US citizens via drones, 86% were against.

Yet, as I previously reported, Rand Paul was only able to get 25% of the CPAC straw poll vote. This despite his stance against drones in his now famous 13 hour filibuster. This means that Rand's poorly written, poorly delivered CPAC speech likely moved no one into his camp, and possibly moved people away.

The full vote count has now been released by CPAC:

Rand Paul - 25%
Marco Rubio - 23%
Other - 14%
Rick Santorum - 8%
Chris Christie - 7%
Paul Ryan - 6%
Scott Walker - 5%
Ben Carson - 4%
Ted Cruz - 4%
Bobby Jindal -3%
Sarah Palin - 3%


  1. Nice lede Wenzel. he wins the straw poll and you play Fox News to his old man. LOL.

    Listen - we get it - you don't like him. A lot. But not everything is a nail to your Anti-Rand hammer.

  2. As much as I enjoy this site for its economic posts, I hate it for its attacks on Rand. Enough already. We get it, you don't think he is a libertarian, neither does he or most other people. He is probably the best we have right now in Washington.

  3. His filibuster definitely helped his position for 2016. I'm not sure if anyone was really expecting him to boost his standing at CPAC. It looks like he finished right where he should, if not better, when you look at other recent polls. For example, he tied with Rubio for 2nd in the Pennsylvania PPP poll.

  4. I think that that's a stretch, Bob. I would have to believe that this was a huge win for the Rand camp. I am not in the Rand camp but beating out all the Neo-con media darlings and handpicked GOP establishment presidential candidates like Rubio, Christie, Santorum, etc., has to be a big success for Rand's campaign.

  5. Mr. Wenzel;

    My only criticism for your line of attack is that you didn't consider the vote was rigged to make it closer then it was--the Machine wants to keep Rubio around for the Amnesty vote which will decide the fate of Senator Paul's political future.

  6. Wenzel, I've figured you out. I think you are in on a conspiracy to make the powers that be believe that libertarians don't like Rand, therefore he is an acceptable candidate. We all know libertarians are kooks that could never be mainstream.

  7. Keep hammering him, Bob. Your points and logic make great sense, and provide me with ammunition for discussions with my Faux News-loving relatives.

  8. Rand may have won the poll but 75% of the attendees didn't vote for him. Logically then most conservatives do not support him. Whether Bob likes Rand or not is irrelevant. A 75% rejection rate is a 75% rejection rate.

    I am friends with a few grassroots conservative evangelical leaders. I think I know why they reject Rand. One of the things I observed about them is their unwavering support for Israel. Support being defined as whatever policy Israeli Zionists push. Israeli Zionists were opposed to Hagel being confirmed. As a result, when Rand voted for Hagel that really bothered the evangelicals yet pacified the libertarians. Rand was losing his libertarian base and I believe he voted for Hagel to shore up the base. He did it at the expense of the evangelicals.

    Rand is trying to pander to each voting block it seems to me. He is trying to be all things to all people to get the most amount of votes in 2016. My own speculation is such a strategy will not work because neither the evangelicals nor the libertarians will trust him enough to throw their support behind him. Especially not when the evangelicals have a more reliable supporter of Israel in Rick Santorum or Marco Rubio. As for the libertarians, they just won't show up to vote if they aren't inspired. Rand doesn't inspire them. Broad libertarian support for Rand is lukewarm if you discount Rand's small but passionate DC cadre.

    Bottom-line, Rand is trying to be all things to all people to win support for 2016. It is my belief that is a doomed strategy. Inconsistency does not inspire people to take action. Few people will stand in the freezing rain holding a sign for a man who votes to starve another country(Iranian sanctions) while urging a 17% flat tax on them while they were paying 0%.(Many of Ron's supporters were poor.) Time will tell. Nature abhors a vacuum and lest someone else better rises to the occasion Rand might fill it for better or worse.

  9. Local Ale nailed it - if he comes out against immigration reform and speaks for the GOP's grass roots he can win in 2016. The bigger issue he makes of it, the better he will do. Of course, contra John G.'s thoughts, he will cease to get favorable coverage from the open border loving Rupert Murdoch, Fox News and any mainstream media outlet.

    If he comes out in support of BS immigration reform, then it is obvious; it's a race to the bottom for the party despite the accolades he will receive from Fox News and the Jen Rubins of the world.

    Choose wisely Rand.

  10. We get it... you have a personal hatred for Rand. It seems like you are letting this personal hatred lead you to irrational conclusions. He WON CPAC, man. I doubt Rothbard would condone this sort of irrational bashing.