Fin du CPAC 2010 aux Etats-Unis

[G7H+]

America's conservatives

Upward and rightward

America's conservatives are in ebullient mood

Feb 22nd 2010 | WASHINGTON, DC | From The Economist online

RAMPANT: no other word comes close to capturing the mood of America’s conservatives as several thousand of them gathered in Washington, DC, on February 18th-20th for the annual meeting of the Conservative Political Action Conference. It is no surprise. With their recent capture of Ted Kennedy’s former seat in Massachusetts, the Republicans have robbed President Barack Obama of his Senate supermajority and appear to have blocked health reform, his chief domestic priority, in its tracks. Now Republicans are looking forward to big victories in November’s mid-term congressional elections, and beginning to wonder who their presidential candidate should be in 2012.

The CPAC meeting is, among other things, a beauty contest for presidential wannabes, and most of the most ambitious Republican leaders did indeed turn up to strut their stuff. A formal straw poll at the end of the jamboree put Ron Paul, the Texas libertarian, at the top of the list, with 31% of the delegates’ votes. Since he is 74 and unlikely to run again, that underscores the fact that the unofficial front-runner in the still undeclared race for the Republican nomination is Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, who came second with 22%. Sarah Palin came third with 7%, just ahead of Tim Pawlenty, the governor of Minnesota, who received 6%. Congressman Mike Pence of Indiana got 5% and 4% each went to Newt Gingrich, a former House speaker, and Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas.

For all the buzz of CPAC, however, the straw poll has never been a reliable guide to ultimate success. Mr Romney has won it three times. Ms Palin, ever the maverick, did not even trouble to attend the Washington event and Mr Huckabee appeared only by video link. The jamboree had less to do with selection than with celebration—and most conservatives feel they have a good deal to relish right now. From despondency in the wake of Mr Obama’s victory at the end of 2008 they bounced back last year with big wins in governors’ races in New Jersey and Virginia, and last month with the stunner in Massachusetts. Mr Gingrich, who led the Republican comeback in the mid-terms in 1994, told CPAC that he expected the Democrats to lose both the Senate and the House in November. Former Vice-President Dick Cheney predicted that Mr Obama would be a one-term president.

And yet it is not all plain sailing for Republicans. They face two tricky issues. First is the danger that Mr Obama will succeed in turning his lost supermajority into an advantage by painting the Republicans in voters’ eyes as the obstructive “party of no” as November’s elections approach. He has invited the Republican leadership to an extraordinary bipartisan health summit in the White House on February 25th. There, as the American people watch, he will ask them either to put up their own ideas for health reform or get out of the Democrats’ way. The Republicans in Congress see this less as a sincere attempt to move forward on health reform than as a trap.

The second potential danger is the tea-party movement, the populist uprising against big government that has swept across America this year and is providing conservatives with so much energy in local elections. Though the Republican establishment is keen to harness the fervour of this movement, it is also afraid of it pulling Republican candidates so far to the right that they lose the support of mainstream voters in November. One prominent face at CPAC this week was that of Glenn Beck, a broadcaster and propagandist who has called Mr Obama a racist and all but compared him to Hitler. Mr Beck has a large following. He is also one of the most divisive men in America.

Source: http://www.economist.com/world/united-stat…29&fsrc=rss

[Nick de Cusa]

31% ça doit sembler un sacré coup de tonnerre.

[Sous-Commandant Marco]

Les pseudo-libéraux et autres conservateurs à géométrie variable ont minimisé la victoire de Ron Paul avec toutes les insinuations dont ils sont coutumiers. Par exemple le blog néo-conservateur Little Green Footballs a sous-entendu que Ron Paul était proche des néo-nazis. Autre exemple de mauvais perdant, Mike Huckabee:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33250.html

Le seul argument à peu près valable a été que les gagnants du sondage du CPAC n'ont pour ainsi dire jamais gagné la primaire républicaine :

http://www.lewrockwell.com/franke/franke11.1.html

[xavdr]

Même si ce n'est qu'une tendance hors période électorale présidentielle, 31% pour l'ultra-libéral Ron PAUL est un coup de tonnerre spectaculaire dans le paysage électoral US. Or un tel coup de tonnerre renverse le champ des possible. Le libéralisme devient la nouvelle pensée de référence et les autres apparaissent comme des solutions usées au futur contesté.

[h16]

Même si ce n'est qu'une tendance hors période électorale présidentielle, 31% pour l'ultra-libéral Ron PAUL

Aaah pitié, pas ce terme ici !

[john_ross]

Aaah pitié, pas ce terme ici !

On a pas le droit de dire que Obama est un ultra-libéral, même ici?

[G7H+]

31% ça doit sembler un sacré coup de tonnerre.

Nouais…

Quand je regarde certaines vidéos, les applaudissements semblent montrer que le CPAC grouillait de libertariens. Les associations proches du Ronpaulisme se sont beaucoup mobilisés pour cette édition (celles que je suis un petit peu avaient toutes un stand là-bas notamment), plus que les associations républicaines normales il me semble. D'où le score final biaisé de Ron Paul.

Mais tout cela me semble bueno.

[G7H+]

Before delving into the numbers, it is important to note that while roughly 1/4 of the 10,000 in attendance at CPAC participated in the poll, around 50% of these voters were students. And indeed the youthful Campaign for Liberty crowd was highly visible and energized throughout the convention, which explains the extent of Congressman Ron Paul’s success. Paul, the staunch libertarian came in first with 31% of the vote, Mitt Romney the establishment candidate second with 22% and Sarah Palin the (absent from CPAC) Tea Partier third but lagging significantly behind at 7%.

Source: http://biggovernment.com/amellon/2010/02/2…the-straw-poll/

[le dernier dino]

On dirait plutôt une excuse des neocons…

You’ve seen this excuse from the neoconned spokesmen and media: "Ron Paul won because a majority of CPAC attendees were college students, and we know that’s his strength. But they don’t reflect the country as a whole."

The truth: The percentage of students declined this year, to 48% from 52% in 2009. And the percentage of registrants aged 18 to 25 also declined this year, to 54% from 57% in 2009. (The percentage of those under 18 stayed the same both years – 2%.) So the growth in Ron Paul’s popularity cannot be dismissed as merely a surge of college or young voters.

lewrockwell.com

Mais on peut aussi en tirer la conclusion que sa "Campaign for liberty" sur les campus a porté ses fruits.

[Nick de Cusa]

Aaah pitié, pas ce terme ici !

Je ne serais pas surpris si Xadr n'en usait à dessein, rapport à la politique étrangère.

[Kevinz]

Nouais…

Quand je regarde certaines vidéos, les applaudissements semblent montrer que le CPAC grouillait de libertariens. Les associations proches du Ronpaulisme se sont beaucoup mobilisés pour cette édition (celles que je suis un petit peu avaient toutes un stand là-bas notamment), plus que les associations républicaines normales il me semble. D'où le score final biaisé de Ron Paul.

Pourquoi biaisé ?

Les pseudos-conservateurs sont incapables de mobiliser/passionner les gens. Surtout ces college kids, comme dit Ron Paul, qui sont pour beaucoup réceptifs à ses messages.

Ce qui est important c'est d'être là le jour du vote. Et les supporters de Ron Paul étaient là.

Rien à dire, victoire méritée.

[G7H+]

Political analyst Patrick Ruffini at The Next Right has a balanced, non-fan’s perspective that I think gets it about right, explaining what the standard bastions of conservatism should both fear and credit Paul and his fans for:

In 2007, the Paulites were an oppositional force trying to submarine the GOP's commitment to the war on terror, thus threatening traditional conservatives. Today, libertarians and conservatives have come together against Obama's endless expansion of the State, with Ron Paul supporters supplying creative organizing tactics and boots on the ground.

….in terms of grassroots organization, Paul supporters are some of the best—if not the best—that we have. The iconography of the tea party movement is heavily libertarian (think the Gadsden Flag) and that's no coincidence. If you broke down the organizers and even those in attendance [at CPAC], you'd find more than your fair share of Ron Paul supporters. This is a categorical shift that's happened in the last year.

Source: http://reason.com/archives/2010/02/24/the-…gle+Feedfetcher

L'intervention de Ron Paul au CPAC, sauter les 5 premières minutes

[Kevinz]

CPAC 2011:

[John Loque]

31% ça doit sembler un sacré coup de tonnerre.

Pas du tout, il a déjà gagné le straw poll de CPAC les dernières années.

En tant que radicaux, les supporters de RP sont très intenses et donc se déplacent pour ce genre d'évènement. Ca ne veut pas dire que RP fait 31% dans une vraie primaire.