Rand Paul wins CPAC 2015!

[jct74]

Chuck Todd on MTP said something to the effect of "Rand Paul won, but it's the other 4 top finishers that tell you where the conservative movement is."

Hugh Hewitt on MTP panel mentioned the winners of the straw poll as being Scott Walker and Ben Carson.

Rand was not discussed at all by MTP panel.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I tried to watch the tube of Fiorina's speech but it was so trite and weak-ass that I couldn't get halfway through it. These candidates have to snap out of the transparent patronizing with the gag-me barf bag stories about how America gave them a shot at realizing their dreams or words to that effect. When their "success" was probably more about politics and banker-Council On Foreign Relations elbow- rubbing and Washington, D.C. connections.

The establishment loves Carly. She is nothing but a puppet spokeswoman for them. They will probably push her like they pushed Huntsman.

 

[presence]

The casual observer would have to assume that the biggest story from CPAC was Jeb Bush.

So when they rig the diebold machines later... boobus won't be surprised.

LOL

 

[philipped]

I'm excited for Ames this year. I think Paul will take it and the blackout will be impossible to impose without looking desperate.

It can go down like that, let's just hope it does not go down like that.

 

[civusamericanus]

"Regan Won CPAC and so did Romney"

In your conversations with UNDECIDED Republican voters, please "Hone in on the fact" that because of Reagan's special relationship with CPAC, CPAC is an important event, which gives a true voice to the conservatives in the party, not the media or the RINO establishment.

http://time.com/3722734/ronald-reagan-cpac-history/

 

[Peace&Freedom]

If JEB won and/or Rand did not come in first, it would be front page everywhere, because these are stories. Rand winning is also a story, but not as big except for here, where we keep up with what Rand does on a daily basis. It is a stretch to claim that the press in general is actively trying to undermine Rand. He does interviews on the big networks 3-5 times a week, and can get op-eds published whenever he wants, even at Huffington Post. He is one of the few in the mix who is still working in govt, and I would much rather he get front page everywhere for something he did on the Senate floor.

To repeat: If it was Bush who "was expected to win," who then won the poll, would they have been equally restrained about reporting "Bush Wins" with a prominent photo and headline? And how do you account for Bush getting more attention and stories yesterday than Walker as well?

 

[Gage]

It was really an inspring moment when Rand was announced as the winner. I knew it would be close, but I was so, so happy to see it worked out in our favor in the end. Thank you to everyone that made this victory happen.

 

[Mr Tansill]

While we're documenting bias, I thought I would add this little tidbit: it's from this weekend's USA Today. It's the back cover of the front section. I've taken the liberty of highlighting the references to political figures throughout. Here's the tally:

[table="width: 400, class: grid, align: middle"]
[tr]
[td]Obama[/td]
[td]8[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Clinton[/td]
[td]6[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Bush[/td]
[td]3[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Ronald Regan[/td]
[td]1[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Mitt Romney[/td]
[td]1[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Laura Ingraham[/td]
[td]1[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Rand Paul[/td]
[td]1; at the bottom...[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Total:[/td]
[td]21[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

Also note that I did not include references to Obamacare or the Clinton Foundation...the only relevant quote I see in the entire article is "which for the past two years has been won by Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who speaks today..."

Thanks for the shout-out...

References to dead people, political figures not running, and radio talk-show hosts: 3.
References to the guy who has won now three years in a row: 1.

We should understand that not talking about something is as much propaganda as anything else.

 

[Valli6]

A headine emphasizing Rand Paul's win! …in a British paper

I found one! I found one!

A UK story about the CPAC poll names the actual winner in the headline!
Further down, it even mentions that Ron Paul ("whose son is Sen. Rand Paul") won the poll twice, and has his picture! Amazing!
…Oh Geez. I just noticed the opening line is about Kentucky Senator Ron Paul. Oh well. Can't expect perfection, I guess.

Rand Paul comes out ahead in CPAC straw poll AGAIN, picking up 2016 momentum with US red-meat right wingers and libertarians

By David Martosko, US Political Editor and Francesca Chambers For Dailymail.com

Kentucky Senator Ron Paul emerged as American conservatives' favorite presidential hopeful on Saturday for the third year in a row, following the three-day Conservative Political Action Conference near Washington, D.C.

The freshman lawmaker bested a field of an astonishing 17 governors, senators, business executives and other assorted long-shot maybe-candidates, finishing with 25.7 per cent of the vote. Conference attendees could also choose a none-of-the-above option or write-in another choice.

Paul, the expected winner of the contest, said in a statement that he was 'humbled by the enthusiastic support and encouragement' he received from 'constitutional conservatives' who propelled him to victory.

'The Constitutional Conservatives of our party have spoken in a loud and clear voice today,' he said. 'I plan on doing my part and I hope you will join me as I continue to make the GOP a bigger, better and bolder party.'

A surging Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker took second place with 21.4 per cent, followed by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

Cruz's 11.5 per cent was just one-tenth of a point better than Carson's showing. Cruz placed second in 2014.

Bush's received 8.3 per cent of the votes. His name was announced first as the 5th-place finisher on Saturday at the event's closing session, drawing a cascade of boos from activists who had remained to hear the results… (continued)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...16-momentum-red-meat-right-wingers.html?login

 

[WD-NY]

Chuck Todd on MTP said something to the effect of "Rand Paul won, but it's the other 4 top finishers that tell you where the conservative movement is."

Hugh Hewitt on MTP panel mentioned the winners of the straw poll as being Scott Walker and Ben Carson.

Rand was not discussed at all by MTP panel.

Caught that too and almost spit out my coffee when I heard it. It wasn't Hugh Hewitt though - pretty sure it was Mike Murray (who's about as establishmentarian as it gets on MTP). If it was Hugh Hewitt, then I definitely recommend asking him what the heck he meant by that "two winners" being Walker and Carsen comment via twitter. And keep asking until he responds.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Am I the only one here who remembers Ames 2012? Of course they're trying to black out the Paul win. It's harder to black out Rand than it was Ron, I think partly because Rand is a Senator, and also because Rand actually won this instead of statistically tying for first but coming a few votes short of the actual victory a la Ron in Ames 2012.

I'm excited for Ames this year. I think Paul will take it and the blackout will be impossible to impose without looking desperate.

That's why the establishment in Iowa are trying to get rid of the Ames Straw Poll. They poo-poo it every time they talk about it.

 

[anaconda]

The establishment loves Carly. She is nothing but a puppet spokeswoman for them. They will probably push her like they pushed Huntsman.

Fiorina's look, demeanor, verbiage, and tone all reminded me of Carrie Bradshaw from Sex And The City. She sounded like anything but a powerful CEO.

The other pink elephant in the room is: for the love of God how much plastic surgery has she had and why is this nobody even mentioning it?

 

[cocrehamster]

The media spins it all.

Reality:

Rand actually beat Walker by 24% not 5%.
A 26%± vs 21%± Is A 24% increase.
The media is adept at playing stupid.
Let's see if we can help them:

Dunking for apples 101;
Johnny was able to get 26 apples, Suzie got 21 apples what was the percentage increase of Johnny's apple
total in comparison to Suzie's?

A 1%
B .06%
C 4%
D 24%

Answer: D 24%
Of course if you go back to 2012 , it wouldn't have mattered, they would have treated Johnny as they did Ron Paul, they would omit
time and time again that Johnny was even there.


..

This is just ridiculous. They didn't report it any differently than they always would.

Crying foul on stuff like this really loses credibility.

 

[CPUd]

To repeat: If it was Bush who "was expected to win," who then won the poll, would they have been equally restrained about reporting "Bush Wins" with a prominent photo and headline? And how do you account for Bush getting more attention and stories yesterday than Walker as well?

No, if Bush won, they would be all over it. "Bush wins" or even "Bush upsets Rand". That does not automatically mean that they are trying to "blackout" Rand. If you go looking for bias, you will surely find it. Posting stuff like that and then calling people stupid sheeps is why people here get made fun of. TBH if someone is interested in Rand and asks me where to find out more about him, I doubt I would send them here.

 

[RDM]

No, if Bush won, they would be all over it. "Bush wins" or even "Bush upsets Rand". That does not automatically mean that they are trying to "blackout" Rand. If you go looking for bias, you will surely find it. Posting stuff like that and then calling people stupid sheeps is why people here get made fun of. TBH if someone is interested in Rand and asks me where to find out more about him, I doubt I would send them here.

So Naive.......

 

[CPUd]

So Naive.......

I've seen all that, and there's not much Paul-centric stuff from the 2012 primaries that i have not seen. Back when all that was happening, I might have been more inclined to agree. It would have been nice to see him pick up a few primary states, I liked following the caucus wins, but I never really looked at things outside the RPFs echo chamber during that time. That's a mistake I have learned from for the next go-around. Ron was never considered by the press to be a serious contender, except maybe in the week or so leading up to Iowa. He was picky about who he would come on and do interviews with, and very rarely did the campaign do anything to compete in primary states. Those 2 things alone would have at least gotten some acknowledgement in the press that he was still running for President.

 

[phill4paul]

And not a single link on Drudge today. Old news already.

 

[Stratovarious]

This is just ridiculous. They didn't report it any differently than they always would.

Crying foul on stuff like this really loses credibility.

lol

Go back to media collusion 2009 regarding Ron Paul , the networks ignored his impact and successes in the straw polls.

They don't 'cover like they always do' unless you mean extreme agenda driven bias, you should have a clue what you are
spewing before you run off at the mouth like that.

 

[Jeremy]

lol

Go back to media collusion 2009 regarding Ron Paul , the networks ignored his impact and successes in the straw polls.

They don't 'cover like they always do' unless you mean extreme agenda driven bias, you should have a clue what you are
spewing before you run off at the mouth like that.

Relax bro, we're all in this together.

 

[Warlord]

And not a single link on Drudge today. Old news already.

LOL you're hard to please. For what it's worth the Rand Paul WINS was Drudge's top story for nearly 24 hours.