CPAC, Part I
February 7th, 2008 at 05:20pm Mark Noonan
Well, after a rough start (eg, flight delays, screwed up car rental, accidentally switching my laptop for someone else’s, etc…), we ended up having a great day here at CPAC.
Obviously, the big news is Romney dropping out and McCain de-facto becoming the GOP nominee for President. We’re still in the whirl of events, so I’ll only briefly comment for now:
Romney’s speech was excellent - a clear, concise explanation of what America faces and why it is time for all to unite behind the man who is our chance to keep Obama/Hillary - and their destructive and divisive policies - out of the White House. Romney has shown himself a good patriot, and made himself the most logical pick for McCain’s Vice President.
McCain’s speech was well-received except by a few, scattered Paul supporters. The McCain supporters were, naturally, on fire for their man, while the Romney supporters were in a “we’ve got to win” mood, and thus seemed willing to give McCain his chance. In the substance of McCain’s speech was two main things: a litany of conservative principles he’ll adhere to (low taxes, spending reform, winning the war, etc) as well as a re-affirmation that he does, indeed, have people who disagree with him and with whom he disagrees, but that disagreements should not lead us to shoot ourselves in the foot in November. To these sentiments I offer my heartfelt agreement.
As to the general tenor of the gathered conservatives - optimistic, determined, brimming with ideas and a passion for seeing them put into practice. The only slight hiccup in an otherwise perfect day at CPAC was Matt at the CPAC straw poll - he was stuck for a moment with a hanging chad in his ballot; we consider this, actually, to be a good omen about just how badly the Democrats are going to start ripping themselves to shreds over the nomination (this was also a well-expressed opinion at CPAC - we’re all “go, Obama, go” and “fight, Hillary, fight”; we enthusiastically back a long, drawn out battle for the Democratic nomination.
More later…
Entry Filed under: CPAC 2008, Campaign 2008, Grassroots
42 Comments
1. Marty13 | February 7th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
“we enthusiastically back a long, drawn out battle for the Democratic nomination.”
As well you should. But, you’re refusing to awknowledge/consider just how fed up the majority is. By the end of the day, the actual nominee will be less important than the “D” at the end of the name. No Republican will have a prayer of winning come November thanks to this administration. As economic conditions worsen, look for the “anyone but a republican” meter to rise even higher.
2. sleepygene | February 7th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Pray tell what are these ideas brimming over at CPAC? More war, no taxes, no immigrants, more authoritarian power vested in man who sees us in Iraq for 100 years or jokes of bombing Iran.
McCain handled the boos very well. Your nuts if you think Mittens is going to be on the ticket. McCain/Brownback is my guess.
3. Aztec | February 7th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
What if Ron Paul were to become the Ralph Nader of the Republican party and siphon off a good chunk of the true conservatives? Hmmm.
4. bozo the neoclown | February 7th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Has trAnnie Coulter made her campaign speech for Clinton at CPAC yet or, will he prove himself to be yet another lying neoclown that can’t believe a word they say?
5. StopJohnLiberalMcCain | February 7th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Man, I haven’t seen this much Kool-Aide poured down the throat since Jonestown.
McAmnesty has doomed the party of Reagan.
6. Brian G. | February 7th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Generally speaking, your average political observer doesn’t care about CPAC speeches and the way candidates are received there, as it tends to be a gethering of the extreme right wing of the Republican party. Therefore, you know you’re just going to hear the same old crap. The talking points are always the same. For all that’s been said about McCain’s need to move to the right, he’d better be damn careful: if he appeases the CPAC crowd, he’ll lose clear thinking moderates to the Dems in November.
7. William Teach | February 7th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Hey, Mark, a question: some of the left wingers are saying people were booing McCain. Since you were there, I wonder if you could verify that.
8. congressive | February 7th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Boo’s turned to cheers. Typical crowd response.
Video is here
9. Sara | February 7th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
My hope is that Mitt Romney does not want the second banana VP slot and that there will be a draft Romney for RNC Chair. He would be dynamite in the job, doing what he does the best, raise tons of money. The Party benefits, but even more so, does Romney from such a post. The RNC Chair gets lots of face time and one that does a good job, and I have no doubt Mitt would do a great job, gets lots of appreciation not only from party leaders and elites, but from the voting public too. It is a place for Romney to shine and get great exposure for the next 4 years.
10. keefer | February 7th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Welcome back, Broder. We’ve missed you…not.
11. LiberalMind | February 7th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
What an orgy of bankrupt ideas and failed policies.
Let’s be clear here, this country is at least half liberal/moderates so you folks have no rights to impose some “conservative” ideology down everyones’ throats.
You have no inherent right to place far right nuts on the Supreme Court either. At least half this country embraces progressive/liberal views on the economy, social issues and foreign policy.
I think America has had enough “compassionate conservatism” with endless wars, misuse of executive power, collapsing economies and incompetence at the highest levels.
The stink that “W” left behind of failed policies, out of control deficits and declining stature on the world only a Democrat can clean out.
12. Freedom1 | February 7th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Remember that we are at war. Islam is taking over Britain. McCain has got to act to demonstrate to conservatives that he will honor our conservative policies and values. He hasn’t done that yet.
Oh, and you know how I’ve been warning people incessantly that Islam is dangerous, well look what the Archbishop of Canterbury in Britain said today…
13. Tractatus | February 7th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Pray tell what are these ideas brimming over at CPAC?
“If we don’t ban gay marriage, illegal immigrant Mexican Islamocommienazis will perform mandatory abortions and raise taxes!”
14. George | February 7th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Poor liberals. So insecure that they have to circle jerk themselves in a Republican blog.
15. Gozer the Carpathian | February 7th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Oi oi… congratulations Hiliary on becoming the President of the United States of America. *Sighs*
Yeah I’m down, but I really don’t see McCain beating her, and while Obama is putting up a good fight I think by the end Hiliary will have won. :(
So yeah, I’ve got stockpile my ammunition and pick up one or two more guns before Clinton Gun Ban II comes back. *Groans*
16. coulterfan | February 7th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Remember that we are at war. Islam is taking over Britain. McCain has got to act to demonstrate to conservatives that he will honor our conservative policies and values.
So that’s what new at CPAC!
When McCain said “They’ll be more wars. . . I’m sorry to tell you this, but they’ll be more wars.”
He meant we need to attack Britain! Thanks for clearing that up!
17. William Teach | February 7th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
So, LiberalMind, what gives you liberals the right to ram your policies down the throats of moderates and conservatives?
18. Freedom1 | February 7th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Gozer,
I’m afraid you’re right. The turnout on Super Tuesday was 2 to 1 in favor of Democrats. If McCain can’t prove to his conservative base that he will actually act like a Republican, many of the Republicans will simply sit on their hands and not vote on November.
Democrat voters have enthusiasm and fire. Republican voters are demoralized with the probable nomination of McCain.
I’ll vote for McCain because I know what’s at stake- Islam’s war against the West, at the top of the list. However, I’m afraid that too many Republicans will sit out the November elections over disgust with McCain’s policies or apathy.
McCain needs to ACT now to fire up the Republican base!!!
19. byebyegop | February 7th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
And with that, the GOP doesn’t reflect my values anymore. I’ll be changing my party registration before the next election. Not sure if I’ll be decline to state or one of the smaller parties, but the GOP has abandoned conservaties.
20. Almiranta | February 7th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Oh, how I love the self-describe Liberal “Mind”! What a brilliant exposition of the very wrong-headed concepts that drive the radical Left!
Take this typical gem: “You have no inherent right to place far right nuts on the Supreme Court either”
First, the President DOES have the right to nominate whomever s/he pleases for the Supreme Court. It’s in that pesky Constitution that gives you so much trouble. It’s up to the Senate to vote yea or nay on these nominations.
Second, I love your blanket description of anyone to the right of you as a “far right nut”.
The purpose of the Supreme Court of the Unites States of America is NOT to impose their own views upon the nation. Conservative justices do not do that. Liberal justices who try to overcome legislation (that is to say, the vote of the PEOPLE) DO do that.
Many liberals are also strict constructionalists, as are all Libertarians and most Independents and nearly all Republicans. That’s a pretty large number of people for you to try to lump into one homogenous group you can then arrogantly dismiss as being “right wing nuts”. It’s pretty much every American except the radical Liberals, who are so arrogant that they feel they have the right to impose their own radical views on the rest of the country, and are perfectly willing to subvert the Constitution to do so.
If a candidate were to drop all partisanship and merely run on issues, I think you would find your so-called “moderate” majority dwindling. Drop the “R” and the
D” and just vote on taxation, size of government, powers of government, need for strong borders, and desire for a strong national defense, and see who votes how. I would be please: You would be distraught.
OK, distraughtER, as your posts indicate a level of distraughtedness hard to top.
On top of that, you’re off thread.
21. Almiranta | February 7th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
….pleased…
22. coulterfan | February 7th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
>>Many liberals are also strict constructionalists, as are all Libertarians and most Independents and nearly all Republicans.
I agree, except for the ‘nearly all Republicans’ part. The problem is that the most activist judges are actually the Conservatives. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is actually more of a constructionist that Scalia- she has said that nothing in the Constitution prohibits polygamy, prostitution, etc. She is more like a Libertarian in Constitutional respects (the honest limited government, no drug laws, no laws against porn, etc)
It is the so-called Conservative justices which uphold sodomy laws, porn laws, drug laws, etc. Yet, nowhere are ANY of these mentioned in the Constitution. Furthermore, abortion was LEGAL when the Constitution was written. So much for ‘original intent’!
23. Jeremiah | February 7th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Get your bayonets ready, my fellow Conservatives!!!
We’ll sure be needing them!!!
–Jeremiah–
24. Rich | February 7th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
OK now that McCain is the nominee I have an idea. Markos over at Dailykos got a ton of media attention for trying to get Dems to vote for Mitt in Michigan. His idea was to keep the Republicans fighting till the convention. Of course the law of unintended consequences can bite him in the ass if Republicans do the same thing now. As soon as Huck is out, why don’t republicans vote for Hillary in open primary states where shes losing, and for obama where obama is losing. They are so even right now just a percent or two could ensure a convention fight and a battle over the Florida and Michigan delegates. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. If Matt and Mark propose this idea, maybe it can get into the news cycle and get some legs. What do you guys think? Fight fire with fire I say!!!!!!!
25. FmrMarine | February 7th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
The only GOOD thing about mcLame is his age.
get a good YOUNG running mate, beat hitlery or earbama.
Wreck the country for maybe 2-3 years,
nature will take it’s course and will provide us with a good POTUS.
Hmmmm not bad!
26. neocon | February 7th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
The liberal mind (I know, oxymoron) , does not have the capacity to understand alternative views. While the GOP candidates offered diversity of opinion in areas such as social, economic, and foreign policy, the Dem candidates debated if Obama was black enough and who the Hispanics would vote for.
I heard Obama say today that he would fix the levies in NO, not recognizing the fact that the Democratically controlled state has wasted millions of dollars and many years ignoring that very same problem. Nor does he recognize the fact that the Army Corps of Engineers is already on the job. Talk about inexperience and platitudes.
Remember, if you don’t cry when Obama speaks, you’re not American. At least Chris Matthews thinks. Do you cry coulter?
27. neocon | February 7th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
coulter,
abortion was neither legal nor illegal prior to it being legislated.
I feel bad for your daughters that you actually raise children.
28. neocon | February 7th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Rich,
Great Idea. Do you have to be black to vote for Obama coulter?
How many time have you cried today?
29. coulterfan | February 7th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
>>abortion was neither legal nor illegal prior to it being legislated.
It was legal at the nation’s founding.
>>Do you have to be black to vote for Obama coulter?
Do you have to be brainless to vote Republican these days, Neocon?
Wait. . . don’t answer that.
30. coulterfan | February 7th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
>>How many time have you cried today?
Twice.
When Multiple Choice Mitt left the race. . . tears of laughter.
When McCain was booed at CPAC and trashed by all the wingnuts and DeLay (isn’t that FRENCH?!?!). Tears of joy.
31. FmrMarine | February 7th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
coulter
here is the “change” earbama will give you.
I hope you are, African, or African- American.
otherwise honkey you be in fo it!
The NOI is waiting for girlymen like you.And bama is REAL friendly with screwie louie.
Trinity United Church of Christ
About Us
We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian… Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain “true to our native land,” the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.
Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981. We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:
1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the Black Community
3. Commitment to the Black Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.
32. neocon | February 7th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
coulter,
When there exists no laws on the books, a practice can neither be legal nor illegal. Can you understand that? Please read the excerpt and click on the following link to learn something other than pre-approved literature given to you by your puppet masters.
A brief history of the abortion controversy in the United States
In the United States, abortion laws began to appear in the 1820s, forbidding abortion after the fourth month of pregnancy.
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortionuslegal/a/abortion.htm
33. Mark Noonan | February 7th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Marty,
The majority was also supposedly fed up in 2002 and 2004 - we’ll see how it comes out.
34. Mark Noonan | February 7th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
William,
There was some booing at the start - my guess is that it would be Paul supporters, but that is just a guess.
At the end of the day, McCain pledged himself to a series of conservative principles - he’s now got 6 months to really build on this and unite the party behind him. If he can do that, he wins the White House.
35. Mark Noonan | February 7th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Gene,
The ACLU and the Libertarian Party were at CPAC - would the NRA be allowed at a MoveOn convention?
36. Dasein Libsbane | February 7th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Mark,
I listened to McCain and have changed my mind; when I take Iran and Israel into the calculation I can support McCain enthusiastically.
Also more impressed than before with Romney; a class act.
37. coulterfan | February 8th, 2008 at 12:03 am
>>here is the “change” earbama will give you.
I hope you are, African, or African- American.
otherwise honkey you be in fo it!
The NOI is waiting for girlymen like you.And bama is REAL friendly with screwie louie.
WOW! Racist, stupid, insulting, and HORRIBLE grammar!
>>would the NRA be allowed at a MoveOn convention?
I don’t know, but I DO know that some Dems (including Dean) have been endorsed by the NRA multiple times. Remember, though, that McCain has favored gun control laws (like Romney, Guiliani, Pataki, Schwarzeneggar, etc)
38. coulterfan | February 8th, 2008 at 12:06 am
>>The ACLU and the Libertarian Party were at CPAC
Remember, though, that the ACLU and Libertarians ARE conservative. The ACLU is the NRA of the 1st ammendment- they have defended Rush Limbaugh, Larry Craig, Nazis, child pornographers, etc. Just like the NRA has defended the rights of folks on the ‘Terrorism Watch List’ to buy automatic rifles at gun shows!
39. Thrower | February 8th, 2008 at 12:28 am
I guess what strikes me about this 2008 CPAC meeting is the absolute lack of a viable conservative candidate in a presidential election year. Looking forward after the 2004 election we might have expected to see a strong candidacy out of Brownback, Allen or Santorum but those guys are gone. Instead we have Romney and Huckabee whose shortcomings are so great that a left for dead McCain storms to the win. And love him or hate him, he is the best chance Republicans have to hold on to the White House.
I think true conservatives need to take a step back and ask what happened to their movement? In action, conservative politicians have never implemented limited government and their embrace of a pre-emptive war against a third rate power would have shocked Robert Taft or even Dwight Eisenhower.
Slashing tax rates has helped some people, but the economic effect seems to be shallow and short lived for too many others. Moreover, if tax cuts have not blown up the deficit, you’ll never get people to sit down long enough to listen to the rebuttal.
The lasting effect of the conservative movement seems to be the appointment of judges and even that carries the risk of blowback if their decisions are at odds with popular culture.
The conservative brand is damaged, perhaps permanently. Just as no viable Democrat ever self refers as a liberal in a national race, the term conservative might soon be an equal anathema to a Republican hoping to win the presidency.
40. Casper | February 8th, 2008 at 12:36 am
Thrower,
The good news is no matter how bad conservatives screw up, the Democrats will find a way of screwing it up worse.
41. Ricorun | February 8th, 2008 at 1:46 am
Dasein: I listened to McCain and have changed my mind; when I take Iran and Israel into the calculation I can support McCain enthusiastically.
LOL! That’s just too funny.
42. coulterfan | February 8th, 2008 at 7:41 am
Very pithy anaysis, Thrower. The future of the GOP depends on the socially liberal, fiscally conservative portion of the party. I often think that they should create their own party- Pataki, Guiliani, Schwarzenegger, Romney (sometimes. . .who knows what his ‘core beliefs’ are? Wanting to preserve ‘traditional marriage’, will he condemn the polygamy of his forefathers, or just gay marriage?), heck- even Bill and Hillary Clinton are socially liberal and fiscally conservative and have more in common with Guiliani than they do with Brownback and Santorum!
And contrary to what Casper claims, I don’t think the Dems can screw things up worse.
If one was to ask Americans whether we’re better off now or during the 90s with a Democratic president, what do you think they would say, Casper?