Sen. Rand Paul demolished his competition in the 2014 Washington Times/CPAC presidential preference straw poll on Saturday, winning 31 percent of the vote — nearly three times the total of second-place Sen. Ted Cruz.
Mr. Cruz’s 11 percent was still a big improvement for the freshman senator, who won just 4 percent in last year’s straw poll. Neurosurgeon Ben Carson was third with 9 percent and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was fourth with 8 percent in results that signal growing discontent with the GOP establishment in Washington.
Indeed, CPAC voters now have an unfavorable view of Republicans in Congress, with 51 percent saying they disapprove of the job the GOP is doing on Capitol Hill. Just last year the GOP had a 54 percent approval rating, and in 2012 they held a 70 percent approval rating.
Rand Paul: 31% Ted Cruz: 11% All the other losers (Christie, Bush): less than 10%
3 posted on 3/8/2014 4:55:28 PM by CatherineofAragon ((Support Christian white males—-the architects of the jewel known as Western Civilization.))
How many Paulestinians did they bus in?
4 posted on 3/8/2014 4:55:36 PM by 2ndDivisionVet (I will raise $2M for Sarah Palin’s next run, what will you do?)
“Paulestinians”? That’s a new one.
After hearing about the background of those attending CPAC I am not sure I would ever support such a group.I wondered why Ted needed to be at such an event but he has to touch all the hands in his run for president. I just hope he remembers where he came from when he makes it over the top.
8 posted on 3/8/2014 4:58:23 PM by Hostage (ARTICLE V)
Ted Cruz? “Over the top”?
That ship sailed so very long ago…
Rand Paul: 31%
Legalized pot gathered more support than Rand.
14 posted on 3/8/2014 5:02:19 PM by itsahoot (Voting for RINOs is the same as voting for any other Tyrant.)
…and is a lot more fun.
This is meaningless, half the voters were under 30 years old. That is a group who don’t show up at the polls.
Also, the Paul’s push legalized marijuana which may account for Paul’s popularity with the Pothead vote.
I like Ted Cruz, but he doesn’t inherit Pauliacs.
16 posted on 3/8/2014 5:04:24 PM by Zenjitsuman (New Boss Nancy Pelosi)
“Pauliacs” (writes down in notebook)
I sure wouldn’t be crowing over this…Romney one (sic) the 2012 CPAC straw vote
29 posted on 3/8/2014 5:12:29 PM by Nifster
While I prefer Cruz on top
I think its going to take both of them to win.
36 posted on 3/8/2014 5:17:39 PM by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
OK, Freepers. What’s the real reason you hate the Paul-bearers so much?
26 posted on 3/8/2014 5:10:30 PM by 2ndDivisionVet (I will raise $2M for Sarah Palin’s next run, what will you do?)
To: PaulCruz2016; All
Indeed, his (Rand Paul’s) father, then-Rep. Ron Paul, won the straw poll twice on a similar libertarian-minded message, though he struggled to translate that support into votes when it came to primaries and caucuses.
GOOD!!! CPAC can choose the little punk all they want, but, thank God he still has to win the votes of the American people in the Primaries; which he WILL NOT do. It would be easier for me to forgive Rand Paul for raping a nun easier than I can forgive him for endorsing, and campaigning for, Mitch “The Bitch” McConnell. I will never forgive him for that, and I will never vote for the little political whore.NEVER!!
168 posted on 3/8/2014 8:41:48 PM by Din Maker (If Ted Cruz gave Rand Paul one of his balls, they’d both have one.)
More apauling pie-fights after the jump..
Pick two and let’s roll.
185 posted on 3/8/2014 9:54:11 PM by Dead Corpse (Tre Norner eg ber, binde til rota…)
It kinda degenerates into a free-for-all after that, with two Freepers getting banned, and then this vomits up from the depths:
Yeah, well, get back to me after five constitutionalists on the supreme court make their ruling.
Meanwhile, Go, Cruz, GO!!
By the way, amnesty pushers need not apply!FURP!!
258 posted on 3/9/2014 2:57:14 PM by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
Need freeper advice: A close friend had serious female issues 10 – 12 years ago. The issues improved and she has only had 1 doc visit related to her problems in the last 5 years and that was 3 1/2 years ago. Wanting to avoid Obamacare, she bought a private Humana health insurance policy early last fall…
During a 3 hour application “interview”, she revealed all the above information. Humana also inspected her health records. She was approved with no exclusions. On the day her policy went into effect, she had a medical emergency (24 hours of vomiting and intense abdominal pain). Three weeks later, after exploring everything available to relieve her, she underwent surgery. The underlying problem was a massive e-coli infection in her abdomen. The doctors do not know where this infection began or how it began. It’s possible it was related to her prior issues but it’s also possible it wasn’t. Because the infection had spread to massive proportions and she was near death, they did a hysterectomy as well as removal of the infection.Humana has decided to deny her $70,000 in claims because they contend that it’s all connected to her past issues which is “possible” but not proven and apparently can’t be. Does this sound like a fight she could win if she chooses to fight? She’s a single woman, age 37, never married. The last thing she wanted was a hysterectomy. I would appreciate any thoughts or comments…
RE :”Humana has decided to deny her $70,000 in claims because they contend that it’s all connected to her past issues which is “possible” but not proven and apparently can’t be. Does this sound like a fight she could win if she chooses to fight? She’s a single woman, age 37, never married. The last thing she wanted was a hysterectomy. I would appreciate any thoughts or comments… “
That sounds illegal under Obamacare
If you fight them and win you can write a letter to Obama thanking him 🙂
Obama said they wont fine companies for doing this to you for existing policies but it seems like you can sue because its against the law now. Consult with a lawyer.
3 posted on 1/10/2014 1:55:56 PM by sickoflibs (Obama : ‘If you like your Doctor you can keep him, PERIOD! Don’t believe the GOPs warnings’)
Yep, folks – you heard it here first – a Freeper advising another Freeper to write the President a letter thanking him for making discrimination against pre-existing conditions illegal. Irony compunded by the poster’s sig line.
That sounds illegal under Obamacare
The original poster said that the friend had tried to “avoid Obamacare” – it’s possible this is not an ACA-compliant plan, which may (I’m not sure) allow the insurer to deny based on pre-existing conditions.
I think that also. A policy purchased independent of an exchange. Buyer beware. She should get a “patient advocate” to negotiate the charges down, otherwise if she can’t pay it might be declare bankruptcy time.
20 posted on 1/10/2014 4:52:26 PM by steve86 (Some things aren’t really true but you wouldn’t be half surprised if they were.)
OK – maybe just one more (Ah, Freeperati, I wish I knew how to quit you).
Posted on 2/5/2014 3:59:02 PM by Hojczyk
As Hillary Clinton prepares to run for President in 2016, RadarOnline.com has uncovered bombshell new information that could torpedo her White House dreams: The philandering husband of the former United States Secretary of State, ex-President Bill Clinton, carried on a torrid year-long love affair with British supermodel Elizabeth Hurley behind White House walls.
That’s the explosive revelation dropped by the man who says he arranged the secret tryst, actor Tom Sizemore.
In a blockbuster exclusive, Radar has unearthed a secret audio recording during which the Hollywood actor, who had his own three-year sexual liaison with Hurley, recounts how the famously-frisky ex-President once sent a plane to fly Hurley to Washington D.C., where he bedded her in the White House — while First Lady Hillary was in the very next room!
1 posted on 2/5/2014 3:59:03 PM by Hojczyk.
Won’t hurt her. It will generate sympathy for the nasty *itch. And admiration for her philandering husband.
Sad state of affairs in America, but that is what happens when you allow a bunch of overpaid stage prostitutes (Hollywood actors) function as role models.
4 posted on 2/5/2014 4:02:56 PM by ZULU (Magua is sitting in the Oval Office. Ted Cruz/Phil Robertson in 2016.)
I don’t believe this, because she doesn’t appear to be fat, ugly or both.
6 posted on 2/5/2014 4:03:58 PM by Sooth2222 (“Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But I repeat myself.” M.Twain)
Hillary couldn’t hear anything because her ears were covered by Huma’s thights
7 posted on 2/5/2014 4:04:19 PM by Doogle (USAF.68-73..8th TFW Ubon Thailand..never store a threat you should have eliminated))
TORPEDO her WH ambitions…?! hahahah..!
1. When the public sees Hitlery as “a woman betrayed” the effect is THEY LIKE HER MORE.
2. The impetus behind this is probably HILLARY HERSELF —there are still YEARS before the election, and she’s outing her OWN SKELETONS, the better that they’re not instead sprung upon her at the most damaging time.
I’m leaning towards choice #2.
8 posted on 2/5/2014 4:04:50 PM by gaijin
This Thread Is Worthless Without Pics!!
Follow the GD rules, sheesh…
16 posted on 2/5/2014 4:08:06 PM by gaijin
What is this a distraction for?
17 posted on 2/5/2014 4:08:26 PM by ßuddaßudd (>> F U B O << “What the hell kind of country is this if I can only hate a man if he’s white?”)
I’m sorry, can you say that again, please? I wasn’t listening.
I’m wary. This could be some sort of political “false flag” event. Throw something out there that gets the sheeple all wee-wee’d up, only to have it factually proven false.
Serves as a sort of “cried wolf” cover for when something else big – and factual this time – breaks.
The Democtats and the media are already working to destroy Tom Sizemore by alleging that there are pictures of him smoking chrystal meth.
it’s not that’d to allege Tom Sizemore is a meth addict, given that he’s been arrested for possession multiple times and done jail time. He’s also appeared on Celebrity Rehab. He’s been a notorious meth head for years, since he got busted for beating up then-girlfriend Heidi Fleiss.
31 posted on 2/5/2014 4:20:01 PM by Bubba Ho-Tep (“More weight!”–Giles Corey)
And just to get to the bottom of the Freeperatis’ Obsession with this issue:
To: Uncle Miltie
LOL few people realize Huma was in the WH intern crew with Monica.
The Clintons may well have been doing the “daily double”.
46 posted on 2/5/2014 4:27:46 PM by nascarnation (I’m hiring Jack Palladino to investigate Baraq’s golf scores.)
3 thoughts on “Today on Tommy T’s Obsession with the Freeperati – Aqua Buddah Strikes Back edition”
Of course, when CPAC sponsors a Palin retrospective of Cruz reading Green Eggs and Ham, you know it is gonna be good. But two of the FR comments have gone above and beyond the call of duty.
First one”Yeah, well, get back to me after five constitutionalists on the supreme court make their ruling…Meanwhile, Go, Cruz, GO!!…By the way, amnesty pushers need not apply” So he wants to throw out the clear understanding of native born for the last 200 years (with typical repub dirty tricks that we’ll do it before the court has time to act. All the while complaining that Obama can’t do the things that he does because they haven’t gone through the courts even though they are constitutional). He wants to do this for Cruz to run. But he doesn’t want any immigrants or children of immigrants. HUH?
Second one – although I have sympathy with the lady with the infection. She intentionally bought her policy to get around the ACA because she didn’t want Obamacare messing up her life. Now she wants the ACA to make the policy conform to the ACA?? Hasn’t she read that post hoc is, in general, unconstitutional?
Maplestreet – the poster making the “five constitutionalists” was Jim Robinson, the owner of Free Republic.
Maybe there’ll be mass bannings like there were over Romney supporters previously?
Tommy, OUCH! Missed who the poster was.
And to think that FR is marked by extreme doctrinal purity. I could see the self-contradiction in a room of philosophers. But for the doctrinally pure, etched in concrete, etc. to make such a self-contradictory comment…
Comments are closed.