-
Sanford Resurrected in Carolina
April 3, 2013 | 140 comments
-
Bostic and Sanford Battle in Charleston
March 29, 2013 | 16 comments
-
South Carolina Showdown
March 26, 2013 | 39 comments
-
The Liberal Media Lie About CPAC
March 18, 2013 | 35 comments
-
The Hottest Ticket in Town
March 14, 2013 | 28 comments
Another Perspective
Another Controversial CPAC
How liberal media cover a conservative conference.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — More than 10,000 activists will convene here today at the Wardman Park Marriott Hotel for the biggest gathering of conservatives in history.
This year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) will not only be the biggest in the 38-year history of the event, it is quite nearly certain to be the most festive and energized. Following on the heels of last fall’s mid-term election triumph, conservatives are in a mood to celebrate and this three-day conference is where they will assemble for that celebration.
You wouldn’t know this, of course, from most of the press coverage. According to the media, the right is deeply divided by internecine feuds, with social conservatives battling libertarians and neocons in a grand three-way donnybrook that threatens to destroy the Republican Party.
Sic semper hoc.
For as long as I’ve been covering CPAC, reporters have been hyping the idea that this event is extraordinarily controversial, using their coverage of the conference to suggest that the conservative movement is teetering on the brink of its final ideological implosion. The only difference this year is that some conservatives decided to join liberals in promoting the overhyped idea of CPAC controversy.
“Gay group in conservatives’ gathering splits GOP,” read a headline at CNN’s website, describing this year’s pet controversy.
The “split” exists mainly in the minds of journalists, having been relentlessly publicized by Joseph Farah’s WorldNetDaily.com. The controversy involves the inclusion of GOProud, which was also represented at last year’s CPAC. That points up the fundamental problem with the “conservatives divided” narrative being promoted in the media: The alleged division isn’t anything new, nor is Farah’s anti-CPAC animus.
Last March, Farah pronounced CPAC “dead,” but this renunciation had nothing to do with homosexuality. Instead, Farah was upset because CPAC refused to address the so-called “birther” issue: Was President Obama born in the United States? Farah suggested this as a topic for CPAC 2010 and, when a reporter asked conference director Lisa DePasquale about it, she said “that isn’t something we’re interested in.”
Having pronounced the death of CPAC in March, WorldNetDaily returned to the theme in November with a story headlined,”Will the Right bring ‘gay’ agenda into the tent?” With or without their “agenda,” however, GOProud was already inside the CPAC “tent,” as were many other potentially controversial participating groups, including the John Birch Society. Prominent social conservative spokesmen — including Robert Knight of Coral Ridge Ministries, a longtime friend of mine — gave quotes to WND reporter Brian Fitzpatrick denouncing GOProud. Liberal bloggers and journalists jumped on the “conservatives divided” story, and the fact that GOProud’s participation was nothing new — and that Farah’s grievance against CPAC was a year old — got lost in the subsequent uproar.
No matter what anyone says, gays aren’t taking over CPAC. I’m writing this story in the lobby bar of the Marriott, surrounded by heterosexual conservatives, most of whom are happily married, and all of whom are having the grandest times of their lives. As I explained two years ago, this is “Mardi Gras for the Right” and, after the Tea Party-fueled GOP triumph of 2010, the mood is very much laissez les bon temps rouler.
This is true every year. Even in years following Republican defeats, the activists who gather for CPAC manage to have a good time. In fact, when the media isn’t busy trying to make up non-existent conservative divisions, they have been known to gin up controversies about conservatives having too much fun. Most notoriously, in 1997, Stephen Glass of the New Republic fictionalized a story about out-of-control College Republicans engaged in sadistic degeneracy during the conference.
Amid all the furor over this year’s alleged controversies, the attendance of more than 5,000 college students is one of the big untold CPAC stories. Every year, thousands of young conservatives come to CPAC to hear the speakers, attend seminars, and discover that they aren’t nearly as rare as they sometimes seem amid the dominant liberalism of American campuses. Many of the students, in fact, aspire to careers as conservative journalists, and will attend a CPAC event Friday afternoon called “Jumpstarting your Journalism Career,” hosted by The American Spectator.
Just in case any of those would-be journalists read this article, let me suggest that their first assignment should be to tell the world the truth.
About the Author
Robert Stacy McCain is co-author (with Lynn Vincent) of Donkey Cons: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party (Nelson Current). He blogs at The Other McCain.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (72) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Robert Stacy McCain
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/02/10/another-controversial-cpac
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Joseph Farah | 2.10.11 @ 6:29AM
Speaking of telling the truth, you might try doing that yourself, Mr. McCain
Ryan| 2.10.11 @ 9:19AM
Point out the lie, please?
NotALibertarian| 2.10.11 @ 11:29AM
" . . . gays aren't taking over CPAC. I'm writing this story in the lobby bar of the Marriott, surrounded by heterosexual conservatives, most of whom are happily married, and all of whom are having the grandest times of their lives."
This statement is a straw man implying that the gay agenda must be advanced by gay people. It doesn't. All it needs is uninformed marriage-agnostics -- whether straight or gay -- who regard themselves as conservative but who are determined to be useful idiots for the Gay Lobby.
Quartermaster| 2.10.11 @ 7:10PM
Farah is referring to what McCain is saying Farah said about CPAC. I don't think McCain is lying, he's just not remembering correctly.
An ill wind does blow at CPAC with them ignoring teh issue of GOProud. GOProud is the camel's nose in the tent and that nose is not connected to anything conservative. What NotALibertarian says below should be heeded by Stacy and others who want to have a conservative movement. The left is laughing at CPAC right now because once more conservatives are destroying themselves by lack of vigilance. The social cons were right to stay away.
If you drive out the social cons, there won't be much left as they have been the primary troops that have gotten conservatives as far as they have.
Vern Crisler | 2.10.11 @ 7:38PM
Dittos Quartermaster. Conservative leaders who open the tent for gays are ultimately paving the way for the break up of organized conservatism. If this pandering to perverts keeps going on, social conservatives and non-insouciant Christians will seek third-party candidates.
Stan Redmond| 2.10.11 @ 9:27AM
Hardly a rebuttal. Methinks this is not THEE Joseph Farah.
Deborah D | 2.10.11 @ 6:46AM
Wish I could be there! I love that 5,000 college students will be in attendance. Passing the torch is always a good idea. We'll need them to hold back the lefty tide.
Appleby| 2.10.11 @ 7:26AM
Interesting that when Democrats disagree it is called Patriotic Right to Dissent. When Republicans disagree it is called a big fight that will send the whole concern over the cliff. How long until the whine du jour: Civility -- rears its ugly head?
logmank| 2.10.11 @ 7:34AM
So, it's not true that the Family Research Council, Heritage Foundation and other socially conservative groups are boycotting CPAC this year? I must have been mis-informed.
Louis Jenkins| 2.10.11 @ 7:42AM
Another merry making event? Guy and gals of CPAC, get busy! There is much work to be done. We cannot delay the reclaimation of the country. These two years may be all that we have.
Brian Mc| 2.10.11 @ 7:43AM
My only concern is as to whether the participants are conservative. Outside of that I could care not one whit what else they are...so, lose the the rest of it. And so, GOProud, go to the devil.
Derek Leaberry| 2.10.11 @ 8:36AM
The problem with CPAC is that most attendees are youngters who have been indoctrinated to accept social liberalism in all its forms. A social liberal is still a liberal even if he swears fealty to Ludwig von Mises or Adam Smith. What the acceptance of GOProud means is that civil war within conservative ranks is on the horizon.
JimH| 2.10.11 @ 9:53AM
If you are willing to use the power of the state to further your own moral agenda, you may be a Conservative in some sense of the word, though not in the American tradition. But you are no friend of liberty. There are many self-proclaimed Conservatives on this sight who would have expelled Goldwater. They are more accurately described as social conservative Populists.
NotALibertarian| 2.10.11 @ 11:25AM
Okay, JimH, now you're just making stuff up.
America has imposed sexual morality through criminal law from its beginning. Laws against adultery, sodomy, pedophilia date back to our Founders' generation. "Using the power of the state to further your own moral agenda" is as American as apple pie.
Seek| 2.10.11 @ 11:39AM
Adultery and "sodomy" are not the same as child molestation. The last one is a crime, the first two aren't -- and shouldn't.
NotALibertarian| 2.10.11 @ 12:31PM
No one said they are "the same". The point is that they are all sexual behaviors that the state has criminalized until recently. The point is that JimH's portrayal of the "American tradition" was completely false.
And your statement that the first two should not be crimes is as much of an opinion as the claim that the last one should not be a crime, See: NAMBLA.
Derek Leaberry| 2.10.11 @ 2:55PM
Anyone who has some sort of misconception that the original American tradition was some sort of radical permissiveness laced with the creed of "live and let live" might want to read David Hackett Fischer's "Albion's Seed." Americans have always regulated dishonorable behavior. America was never a libertarian paradise.
skip| 2.10.11 @ 1:33PM
It is a non sequitur.
If homosexuals are 'born' that way, so must be legitimized etcetera, by extension then child molesters are 'born' that way, beastialitists(?) are 'born' that way, rapists are 'born' that way, incestors are 'born' that way, adulterers are 'born' that way, murderers are 'born' that way, thieves are 'born' that way, liars are 'born' that way, etcetera etcetera etcetera. Nothing is wrong because it is all genetics. Even Lord-takers-in-vain and idolators and dishonorers-of-mother-and-fathers are 'born' that way. Idiotic.
Sin is sin.
Brian Mc| 2.10.11 @ 4:54PM
Excellent points, Skip
skip| 2.10.11 @ 5:24PM
Thank you.
JimH| 2.10.11 @ 2:35PM
I guess I was unclear. I meant the American conservative as opposed to British Tory tradition.
Red Phillips | 2.10.11 @ 5:16PM
So the British Tory tradition has a stronger history of regulating vice in the name of Christian virtue than the American conservative tradition? (Equalizing for the context of time frame, since the Tory tradition dates from well before the US was founded.) How so? Please explain? Jim, I think you are remembering history the way you want it to be (the way that best fits your ideological box), not the way it was.
Pre-modern man had no problem regulating vice based on religious presumptions. That we should not do so is a relatively novel idea historically speaking.
JimH| 2.11.11 @ 8:08AM
The Americam tradition is not synonomous with Conservative thinking as such in America. American conservative ideology is a rather recent invention historically. BTW, if you look at the major restraints on liberty imposed on America they were done by progressives. From Lincoln to Wilson to FDR to Bush II.
Lenny| 2.11.11 @ 5:04PM
Freedom can only be sustained by a virtuous people. Internal controls not external controls are imperative.
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." Benjamin Franklin
Derek Leaberry| 2.10.11 @ 11:42AM
Conservatives should wish to conserve all that is good in society whether it is ordered liberty, Christian values, small government and cultural traditions. For instance, the institution of marriage has always been one between one man and one woman for thousands of years. Conservatives should wish to conserve the institution of marriage. Only the Left, whether Marxist, liberal or libertarian, believe otherwise.
Regarding homosexual marriage, think about this. Would George Washington support homosexual marriage or would he think the whole idea of homosexual a bunch of nonsense? Fill in the blank for almost anyone in American history and the answer would be the same.
Jacobite| 2.10.11 @ 1:37PM
In his later doddering years, Barry deserved to be expelled. He was more Libertarian than either Conservative or Right-wing. Conservatives only want to stop Leftism's advance. They are essentially leftists of the last generation. Your only hope at this stage of the game is with the right Wing. They are the only folks ready to tear it all down -- everything in politics since about 1900 is crap. Although it was based on a delusion (the Enlightenment) the Founders' philosophy was still grounded in reality, and so it worked. Once we got an entire class of people who knew nothing about normal human beings, the reality disappeared and the delusion was left to run wild. Men and women are essentially the same? Therte's no such thing as IQ -- everybody can be a genius? Arabs are the same people as Danes? There's no inherent conflict between Mohammedanism and Christianity? These beliefs make those rejecting evolution look like Aristotle. Leftists aren't arguing against a reasonable theory, but against observable reality.
Stan Redmond| 2.10.11 @ 10:42AM
We have to start somewhere. As conservatives you can't expect we will be in charge of elite colleges and K-12 public education anytime soon. I was a big time liberal when I was young and stupid. After surviving the indoctrination of college reality set in and I educated myself when I started working.
Redstateboy| 2.10.11 @ 8:32AM
We gotta get busy that's for sure.. it ain't no joke out here in the Land of Hussein - it downright sucks. 6, 7, 8 Resumes for every job allows the worst of human nature to take hold with employers treat'n employees (in the Private sector) like crap because they can. We barely hang on for 2 more years of the Messiah.. we're get'n killed out here.
canuckistani| 2.10.11 @ 4:13PM
....so what you think Boehner and his cabal of thieves would do to improve your chances at a job?
1) Come down harder on the Chinese? Nope.
Junior and daddy perfected the voluntary handover of our competitve edge.
2) Enact a healthcare plan that makes employers competitive with even Canada's business costs? Nope. Ask the automotive industry how much it costs to provide healthcare to their employees and why they question remaining here. Union and non-union alike.
3) Add new seed money to developing industries that need new domestic workers that cannot be outsourced? Nope.
4) Provide relief to states that are facing budget shortfalls and eliminating investment programs? Nope.
5) Providing risk protection to banks for new capital? Nope.
So, what are you suggesting would have been different? Boehner crying during the TARP debate was rich, wasn't it? It galvanizes my contempt for his duplicitous behavior.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZ-70rQD19M
Cantor is proposing $100B in cuts on a $1.4T deficit, and he is being reined in by the "adults" in the GOP, because they know cutting off women and children is probably bad policy.
Bill #3 does not focus on your job, but whether or not a drugged rapee is the same as punched-out rapee.
Sleep well.
Lenny| 2.11.11 @ 3:16AM
We will sleep well as soon as we kick your Leftist asses out of power.
It's especially amusing to see a Leftist feign outrage over duplicity; you clowns invented it.
Hypocrite.
Floyd Looney | 2.10.11 @ 8:34AM
If Sodomy in schools and the gay agenda is a non-issue to conservatives, then you aren't a conservative.
Pete| 2.10.11 @ 10:18AM
I am sure under Obamacare, the expense of the treatments will dictate that care be withdrawn or limited at a certain point. At least for those foolish enough to associate themselves with the GOP.
Al Adab| 2.10.11 @ 10:38AM
One of the favored tactics of The Left is to ridicule the opposition. They have the help of the mass media in doing so and it should come as no surprise. What Conservatives need to do is simply present the case for principle and Freedom as clearly as possible without the distractions. The voters will decide. Ocassionally a Reid will steal an election- nothing new there- but overall through perserverance and commitment to principle, we will prevail. Only when we waffle do the voters rightly punish our cause. No accomodationists again.
DRed| 2.10.11 @ 12:23PM
Al, have you ever read articles on the American Spectator website? Do you ever notice that they sometimes ridicule the opposition? It's entirely fair in my opinion, but it's ridiculous for you to think that it's only a tactic of "The Left". Open your eyes.
Lenny| 2.11.11 @ 3:14AM
But you pretend you're neutral and we're sick of it.
richard mcenroe | 2.10.11 @ 11:40AM
If you want sodomy in the schools, keep carrying the Democrats' water/ I'm pretty sure Van Jones ain't a member of GOProud...
Genie | 2.10.11 @ 12:20PM
Once again an article about the gay issue at CPAC like it is the only important issue to be concerned about.
This was going to be my first visit to CPAC, but I have chosen not to attend because all credibility was lost when I discovered that the ACU has on its board of directors, Suhail Khan. Mr. Khan is a "moderate" Muslim who in 1999 in a speech to ISNA which has direct ties to the Muslim
Brotherhood made this statement:
"What are our oppressors going to do with a people like us? We are prepared to give our lives for the cause of Islam."
If that fits with the principles of the ACU and CPAC then I want no part of it, and there are many more who are discovering this who feel the same way.
Islam is in no way compatible with the stated principles of the ACU, and if "moderate" Muslims desire to die for the cause of Islam they have no business being a member of the ACU let alone sitting on the board of directors.
How are we supposed to believe that the ACU has our best interests at heart when they have this connection to the Muslim Brotherhood? Yes, I understand that Mr. Khan has been involved before, but his connection to ISNA, and his declaration of loyalty to Islam has not been widely broadcast. How can anyone support an organization with Mr. Khan connected to it?
Red Phillips | 2.10.11 @ 12:40PM
I do think gay marriage and DADT and various other aspects of the gay agenda is a legitimate and divisive issue. (It isn't divisive for authentic conservatives who understand that conservatism is NOT ideological committment to limited government per se, but the inclination to conserve. Nothing could be a more intuitive thing for a conservative to desire to conserve than Christian/Biblical morality and the ancient tradition of marriage and family, the primary building block of every society ever. It is controversial and divisive for conservatives who confuse conservatism with ideological libertarianism of one degree or another.) I do think the effort to boycot CPAC over the inclusion of GOProud is ill advised, however. Diverse groups should be tolerated because I don't want the John Birch Society or Youth for Western Civilization boycotted for being controversial either. Attempts to purge wrong-thinkers will inevitable work against the interests of those "farther" (for lack of a better term) to the right.
And I agree that the liberal press loves to seize upon these things because it fits their agenda of sowing discord. But I think RSM is (intentionally?) overlooking the significant divide here. The divide between the old guard interventionist hawks and the new breed of non-interventionists. There has already been controversy that the "Defender of the Constitution" Award is being given to Donald Rumsgelf. (What part of the Constitution did he defend exactly?)
I know RSM attempts to downplay the foreign policy issue for the sake of unity, but it is going to be increasingly hard to do so. A time for side taking is coming.
Quartermaster| 2.10.11 @ 7:19PM
If the people running CPAC want to include people that support Islam (Norquist), or the "Gay" agenda, and still call things conservative they are welcome to their clown show. The social cons are quite correct in boycotting something that betrays what they stand for.
It looks like Franco below is hung up on queers. But, there are not more important matters than what queers want to do to the conservative movement. What Franco wants is something called Rockefeller Republicanism. The left and the RINOs will be happt to give that to you.
Franco| 2.10.11 @ 12:42PM
Homos, homos, always the homos. There are a lot more important matters than the homos, people.
canuckistani| 2.10.11 @ 4:35PM
Like what? Let's see.....
According to the GOP, it's defining whether a rapee drugged is less of a victim than a rapee who is punched-out, not job creation or structural changes that free the middle-class. Bill #3, Franco.
Utah (or some other forgettable state with two too many senators) wants to make it mandatory for everyone to be armed. Job creation or needless redneck fantasy? Job creation, backseat again.
Idaho (or some other forgettable state) wants to ban sharia law - even though zero cases - anywhere - has prompted this move. Job creation, backseat again.
States are cutting cops, fire and college subsidies, while Wall Street takes record bonuses. China - yes those red bastards - are eating our lunch and serving the scraps back to us and we're dismantling the foundation in support of whom?
A true conservative would have recognized winfall profiteering and taken action. This congress, not a chance.
You have this absurd view that a true conservative is armed to the teeth, can direct another adult's consensual activity, and imbue the civil state with a warped Christian ethic that has zero to with Christ and everything to do with control.
I have a serious problem with the priorities that the GOP has today - straight from the conservative playbook that has nothing to do with advancing the country and the prospects for our children. Do you?
Lenny| 2.11.11 @ 3:21AM
You're not a Conservative so why should we give a damn what you think of Conservatism?
I'll give you a heads up--we don't give a crap what you think, moron.
jewishodysseus | 2.10.11 @ 12:50PM
Stacey, I don't think it's fair of you to blame Joe Farah for discrediting CPAC. Haven't you noticed the relentless daily attacks on CPAC from your friend, and mine, Pamela Geller at AtlasShrugs? For weeks she has demonstrated that the "official" CPAC conference has indeed been compromised by stealth jihadis, period.
Stacey, let's give credit where credit is due! ;- )
Red Phillips | 2.10.11 @ 1:17PM
If CPAC has indeed been compromised by stealth jihadis (stealth multicults perhaps but not stealth jihadis) then why is it giving the Defender of the Constitution Award to Donald Rumsfeld?
I do suspect the CPAC power that be sense the growing trend toward non-interventionism among the base, but to suggest they have been compromised by "stealth jihadis" is absurdly paranoid. The bitter-ender fear mongering interventionist brigade (such as Gaffney) senses they are losing their grip and are becoming increasingly hysterical.
The appropriate response to concerns about Islam in our borders is and has always been immigration restrictions, not bombing far off countries.
Derek Leaberry| 2.10.11 @ 4:57PM
I wonder if the creatures at CPAC would permit The League of the South, American Renaissance, the Conservative Citizens Council, Chronicles magazine and others to put up booths. I would say no.
Red Phillips | 2.10.11 @ 5:19PM
I suspect Chronicles would be welcomed, but not interested. The other three, no way. Which illustrates my point that I think policing CPAC for wrong think works against traditionalist conservatives.
Al Adab| 2.10.11 @ 5:43PM
Just as Ford threw away his chance with Rockefeller, Bush lost his with Ford retreads Cheney and Rumsfeld. For what do Conservatives fight if not for clarity.
Uli Kunkel| 2.10.11 @ 2:07PM
Seeing how there's this penchant by the left-wing media to lie and fabricate, the participants in this CPAC endeavor should bring caged chickens, collared/tethered goats, any such animal that's commonly and ritualistically sacrificed to the conference venue, spectacularly displayed as an example of their blood-lust. Why not? After pointing-out that sacrifice is certainly a platform and goal, simply sit back and wait for the ensuing journalistic amusement...
Notice: No animals will be harmed or abused in any way...
Joe D.| 2.10.11 @ 2:14PM
There is a controversy. We don't want GOProud there. They should not be there at all. So there is a divide not made up.
Genie | 2.10.11 @ 2:44PM
If people cannot see how having a Muslim who declares his desire to die for the cause of Islam on the board of directors of the ACU goes completely against the stated principles of that organization and simply accept it then the Republican party and conservatism in America are doomed.
Why in heaven's name are people not raising the roof over this?!!
MSriver| 2.10.11 @ 4:13PM
Genie, They should. Is not point of outrage null as other allowances rise to distract in the mind as described up to this point? At best, let the man-eater through to do what, infect the vote with an inability to recognize subtle subversion?
JimH| 2.10.11 @ 3:30PM
Actually it has gotten to the point where terms like Conservative or Liberal are devoid of meaning. What is important is deciding how much power the State should have and to what purposes ought it be put.
Al Adab| 2.10.11 @ 5:17PM
I note with interest that the world premier of the Atlas Shrugged movie trailer is set for tomorrow at CPAC. Does the working definition of Conservative (as in Movement) currently include Objectivists and Libertarians? We already have neo, paleo, fiscal, social and others. Not criticizing, just inquiring.
Quartermaster| 2.10.11 @ 7:26PM
The Founders were not Libertarian. Libertarians recognize few moral limits, although you have some like Rockwell and his bunch that think you can have a free society without moral restraint (Rockwellites who protest that this is not fair to Rockwell haven't been paying much attention to him, or to the inconsistencies of his writings). John Adams, a Unitarian, no less, stated that the constitution is adequate only for the governance of a moral people. Rockwell has missed the point that Evangelicals and Orthodox Jews are the most conservative people in our society. Without their influence, and the RINOS and other leftists are doing their best to end it, the country goes under.
Ralph Novy| 2.10.11 @ 9:32PM
LOL.
You were doing rather well till the end there.
Then you went off the rails.
Get your choo-choo back on track, eh?
Good wishes,
Ralph
Lenny| 2.11.11 @ 3:24AM
You're the one who is off the rails.
Lanesville Tom| 2.10.11 @ 8:26PM
Good call, QM. If we continue our current moral slide, no amount of fiscal restraint and economic growth will save us.
Ralph Novy| 2.10.11 @ 9:28PM
CPAC is indeed dead, done in by internecine warfare -- hoist by its own petard.
Fitting.
Kharma.
Duh.
Snickers and smirks.
Free Bee| 2.10.11 @ 10:13PM
The Globalist frontmen, flubba-dubs, adulterers and
sellouts at CPAC this year should step aside and
make way!
The star presiding, opening speaker for
CPAC this year ------should be a Canadian.
----------IT SHOULD BE ---ALAN WATT!
GotFreedom| 2.10.11 @ 10:47PM
We understand Donald Trump made an appearance at CPAC today and that he's considering a run in 2012 and that he is an extremely successful business man, but we don't think we could support him for Prez and here's why:
He's contributed to Rahm Emanuel's mayoral campaign--Emanuel's Money Entourage Stars Trump, Jobs, Spielberg in Chicago Campaign (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...-...)
Here is a list of who "The Donald" has contributed to (1999-present):
http://www.campaignmoney.com/b...
He's contributed to:
Tom Coburn, Anthony Weiner, Chuck Schumer, Hilary Clinton, McCain/Palin, Charlie Crist, Harry Reid, Arlen Specter, Gillibrand, Dick Durbin, Charlie Rangel, Joe Lieberman, Joe Biden, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, Chris Dodd, Rudy Giuliani
. . .and quite a few others (who's names we don't recognize)
We're puzzled by the fact that he seems to contribute to both parties. So who's ideals does he support--the Dems or Republicans? Looks like he likes to walk a fine line between them both (keep on their good sides because he never knows who he's gonna need to call on for help with his businesses). We can't believe that all these donations are strictly for tax purposes--at any point does he support/believe in the same politics as the folks he's donating too?
"Experience taught me a few things. One is to listen to your gut, no matter how good something sounds on paper. The second is that you're generally better off sticking with what you know. And the third is that sometimes your best investments are the ones you don't make."
Donald Trump
We think Mr. Trump should take his own advice (no matter how good (he) sounds on paper) and stick with what he knows, building buildings/casinos/golf courses--not politics. An adviser, maybe, as Prez, No!
Red Phillips | 2.10.11 @ 11:45PM
I wouldn't vote for "The Donald" because I don't think he is reliably conservative, but at least he has sense enough to be against the sovereignty trashing managed trade KORUS FTA boondoggle. So he gets props where they are due.
http://stopuskoreanafta.org/20.....rade-pact/
Simon Templar| 2.11.11 @ 3:53PM
He does exactly what 90 percent of the corporate world does..gives to both parties to insure that his industry or company buys either group and comes out on top no matter what. Excellent observation. Point well taken. The next question is can he stop doing this and make a transition to a firm, honest, principled politician. Or are we gonna get even more two timing and double talk like we never seen before? That's the rub, my friend.
Sean Scallon | 2.11.11 @ 8:41AM
The fact that Trump has come out against the Korea-U.S. trade deal and this week's pulling of a vote on a trade deal in the House by the leadership shows there a very fluid House GOP caucus against the kind of trade deals which benefit only corporate interests and infringe upon U.S. sovereignty.
Tenn Slim| 2.11.11 @ 9:53AM
CPAC . Party Time indeed.
Now. Lets get down to work.
The Mid East is aflame, OBAMACARE continues to be implemented. Congress pace is extremely slow.
A 2010 election is ONE day. Celebrate, go home, start the work effort for 2012.
Semper Fi
We Will Prevail
Simon Templar| 2.11.11 @ 3:47PM
Something to think about. Let's consider this. If GoProud did not have a hidden agenda they would do two things AS Conservatives first and homosexuals second. First, they would assure people that they are conservatives and they are at CPAC to fight against progressives and proclaim that their sexual orientation was not a matter for discussion or relevant. Second they would approach Heritage and Familiy groups and ask them to come as they would not be there to intimidate and but rather respect other peoples views on the matter. Is that happening?
Simon Templar| 2.11.11 @ 4:01PM
Oh, and by the way..the knock against the John Birch Society. For years I swallowed the horse manure liberals taught me in college about them and thought no further. It took me twenty five years later to check them out for myself. I went out to their web site a few weeks ago and was surprised to see that this was all liberal claptrap. They are not a crazy group anymore than Goldwater was. I did not join them but know that they are well meaning Americans with a strong love of country and its values.
Lenny| 2.11.11 @ 5:10PM
My inlaws belonged to the JB Society in the fifties, and they were among the most intelligent, clear-headed and principled American patriots I've ever had the pleasure of knowing. They were way ahead of their time.
sex toys | 7.4.11 @ 1:14AM
The fact that Trump has come out against the Korea-U.S. trade deal and this week's pulling of a vote on a trade deal in the House by the leadership shows there a very fluid House GOP caucus against the kind of trade deals which benefit only corporate interests and infringe upon U.S. sovereignty
Reebok | 8.11.11 @ 3:56AM
is good
العاب | 4.11.12 @ 4:32PM
If that fits with the principles of the ACU and CPAC then I want no part of it, and there are many more who are discovering this who feel the same way.