Politico reported that,

As the results were displayed on twin large screens in the ballroom — and even before Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio could announce who had won — a cascade of boos came down from a crowd that views Paul and his fervent supporters as irritants. Paul’s backers responded with cheers, though, when their candidate was then proclaimed by Fabrizio as the winner.

A spokesman for the conference rushed over to reporters after the announcement to make sure they had heard the unmistakable boos when the screen first showed Paul had won the straw poll.

CPAC 2010 drew more voters than any time in CPAC’s history with 2,395 participants, up from 1,757 in 2009 and 1,558 in 2008. How do we explain Ron Paul’s popularity at CPAC despite many conservative’s grumbling and booing at his success?  ” The results are skewed by Paul’s popularity amongst younger voters” say many different talking heads. Yes, 54% of the voters were between the ages of 18-25. That definitely is a major factor as Ron Paul’s popularity among college students has been apparent since his Presidential campaign.

However, according to the polling data, there was actually a smaller percentage of college voters than 2009 when Mitt Romney won the poll. Romney’s percentage of the vote actually increased from 20% to 22% which indicates that Ron Paul either took votes away from Palin, Pawlenty, Gingrich, and Huckabee among others or, a whole lot of Ron Paul’s supporters came to CPAC to see him and represent his views. The general impression around the blogosphere is we should dismiss this straw poll. However to dismiss the poll entirely would be a mistake.

If we look at the other polling data at CPAC we find many interesting things:

• Of the two issues participants found most important were “Reducing the Size of Federal Government” and “Reducing Government Spending” (two issues that are complimentary as one begets the other)
• Cutting Federal Spending was considered the top priority Republicans should consider when it comes to fiscal policy (It was like a tent revival with so many speakers being reborn with the limited government church…again)
• A 37% disapproval rating of Republican members of Congress (No guessing as to how the Paul supporters voted in this one…Is there anybody listening?)
• A 2% favorable rating of Harry Ried and Nancy Pelosi (that’s around 40 people voting who felt really awkward at CPAC according to my embarrassingly low math skills)
• Michael Steele, Chairman of the Republican National Committee won the most unfavorable person at CPAC award with a 44% disapproval rating (it’s all part of his bringing people together plan)
• Jim DeMint has the lowest unfavorable rating making Jim Demint, “Mr. Popular” (DeMint happens to love Ron Paul’s Audit The Fed bill….the irony of it all)

My conclusion from the poll:

• Ron Paul can turn out the most active young conservatives (libertarian leaning) of any potential candidate…period (they aren’t going away)
• Cutting spending and government is clearly the #1 issue for the CPAC attendees with the “war on terror” a distant 3rd (it’s the economy stupid)
• More than half the attendees feel the Republicans will pick up 30-40 seats in 2010 and they may be right (1994 again?)
• There is an small contingent of anti-war/non-interventionists conservatives in the GOP who are becoming quite vocal (sorry neo-cons)
• Ron Paul’s economic message and ideas are taking hold even if his popularity among mainstream Republicans isn’t (60 appearances on FOX News helps)
• There is no clear cut front running candidate for 2012 (as long the leadership in the GOP remains the same this may not change)

Overall, it appears as if reducing the size of federal government and spending are the top concerns for conservatives at CPAC. How future prospective front-runners like Romney and Palin address this could determine their future. If Ron Paul does run in 2012, I would expect an even bigger battle at GOP county and state conventions than 2008 and it certainly got ugly in some places.

Does the same standard apply to Obama’s children when they are used (or choose for themselves) to make political statements?

Barack Obama’s eldest daughter has a clear message for her father – it’s time to get rid of the world’s nuclear weapons.

Just 48 hours after the U.S. President shook hands with Vladimir Putin over an agreement to reduce their stockpile of nuclear weapons, Malia spotted out wearing not one, but two anti-nuclear T-shirts.

The 11-year-old wore tops bearing the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament’s famous symbol as her father prepared for three days of G8 talks in Italy.

She wore a grey T-shirt to visit the Colosseum in Rome with mother Michelle and sister Sasha, seven, and then appeared to have whipped it off to reveal a mottled white and grey top also bearing the CND logo.

The symbol, designed for the CND in 1958, is now widely used as to signify peace and is also an international sign for anti-war protesters.

Now, personally, I wouldn’t dream of using this clear political statement as an entree to questioning Malia’s parentage or making tacky rape jokes about her, like others have with Palin’s family. Indeed, I have to give Malia credit – at eleven years old, she’s already showing the political maturity of a typical sixteen-year-old,  much like the Americans who voted for her father for purely emotional and symbolic reasons.

But I think it’s fair to question whether her making a political statement like this makes her fair game in the same way that Palin’s campaign appearances with her family were “political statements” that threw open hunting season on her minor children throughout the campaign and for months afterwards.  Clearly Malia’s statement could not have been made without her parents’ knowledge, First Family public events (especially overseas) being carefully image-managed events – which means they are using at least one of their daughters for political messaging purposes every bit as much as Sarah Palin can be said to have used hers.  Would Democrats (and Andrew Sullivan) have any grounds for complaint if right-leaning talking heads now started speculating baselessly on Malia Obama’s paternity, or describing her as a trailer trash slut with a goofy name? 

For the record, while I see no problem in a candidate’s or President’s family appearing onstage with them during campaigns, or their adult children campaigning for them or otherwise assisting their political efforts if they choose to do so, I do have a problem with any candidate making active use of their children to score political points.  What constitutes exploitation for political points is a broad gray area, however, a subjective judgment that varies from voter to voter.  In no way, though, does such use (exploitative or otherwise) justify the mindbogglingly ugly personal attacks that have been made against the Palins over the past ten months.

If similarly ugly attacks against Malia and Sasha Obama do become commonplace as Obama’s term wears on, the left (and Andrew Sullivan) will need to consider the possibility that they themselves set the precedent for such things.

In her statement, Palin also said:

I applaud Donald Trump for standing with Carrie during this time. And I respect Carrie for standing strong and staying true to herself, and for not letting those who disagree with her deny her protection under the nation’s First Amendment Rights.

Dammit.

Whether you agree with Prejean (and President Obama and Hilary Clinton and Sarah Palin) on gay marriage or not, this should irritate you.

We saw this same line of argument arise when the Dixie Chicks stopped getting play on the radio after expressing shame that they were from the same state as the President of the United States. People shouted, “What about their freedom of speech?!” And now they ask the same about Carrie Prejean.

Well, they got their freedom of speech. Now, they have to deal with the consequences of saying what they said. Part of freedom is dealing with the consequences of your actions. The First Amendment is not a protection from any or all consequences of our words. It is protection from government repercussions on and limitations upon speech.

Woodrow Wilson once said that “The best way to dissapate nonsense is to expose it to the open air. It is a volatile thing, wheras fact and truth are concrete things and you cannot dissapate them that way.” He recognized that it’s a marketplace of ideas out there, and that only the fittest will survive.

Why can’t today’s politicians?

Both Palin and Obama were shaking hands and kissing babies in Colorado today, so the 600 AM KCOL Morning Show attempted to contact both the McCain Camp and the Obama Camp to provide them the opportunity to communicate each candidate’s message in this Colorado leg of their campaign tours. 

Host Brad Jones speaks with Bill Riggs, spokesman for the RNC, about Governor Palin’s visit to Colorado and he states her talks today will discuss “her record of reform and shaking things up in Alaska” and “she’s going to be citing actual results.”  However, after trying to reach the Obama Colorado Press line all morning long and not having any of his calls returned, at the end of the final hour of the morning show, Brad calls them on air. 

First they put Brad on hold.  And then they Hung up on him.  Jennifer from the Obama Camp quickly called KCOL back and was unwilling to discuss Obama’s message to Colorado on the air.  She stated  “unfortunately we weren’t able to locate any of our surrogates today with Senator Obama being here in Grand Junction and in Pueblo” and she apologized that she wasn’t able to provide someone to speak on the air this morning.  When Brad asked her if the Obama Camp planned to let KCOL know that they didn’t have an available spokesman today, you guessed it, she hung up on him.  Again.  Tough crowd, Brad.  You made your best effort to let them get their message out. 

How is the traditional media supposed to do their job (well, what used to be their job) of providing a balanced perspective if some campaigns refuse to talk to them?