The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Quick Hits from CPAC

By on 2.11.12 @ 11:46AM

Like my colleagues, I’ve spent the past couple days at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), the nation’s largest gathering of conservative activists. A few random thoughts:

1. There is a heavy Rick Santorum presence this year. His mometum with conservative activists is still noticeable. I’ll be surprised if he doesn’t win the straw poll.

2. Ron Paul, by contrast, does not have a large presence here this year despite winning the last two straw polls. Paul is the only major Republican presidential candidate who didn’t address CPAC. The wisdom of this decision will be evaluated in large part based on how well he does in Maine.

3. Newt Gingrich gave a good speech touting his (and the private sector’s) ability to accomplish seemingly unrealistic goals. His promotional material photo also highlights his prominent conservative backers. We’ll see what that does for him in the straw poll.

4. One of those backers, ex-candidate Herman Cain, got a great reception during his address. The failed presidential run has raised his profile as a conservative figure.

5. Talking to attendees, there is a lot of concern about whether the eventual Republican nominee will actually beat Barack Obama. People don’t exactly expect Obama to win, but there is some nervousness.

View all comments (47) |

Roger| 2.11.12 @ 12:06PM

Obama will win. Unless we get a better nominee. Romney has shown he can't win. We also know that Santorum can't either,if we are being honest that is.

Ward Bond| 2.11.12 @ 12:21PM

Don't know.I can't see anyone that didn't vote for him last time going for him now. Gas will be $4 plus. Food and other things are just going to get worse and worse. He can't run on his record with sane people but, never underestimate the stupidity of the American voters.

Nick| 2.11.12 @ 1:20PM

Roger,

Yeah, and Ronald Reagan couldn't win either.

RJ| 2.11.12 @ 3:09PM

I remember that was the conventional wisdom in 1980, Reagan can't win; he is too extreme and too old. He then won 45 states, including Massachusetts. We will do fine as long as do don't give up. The media and the Democrats will use every opportunity to discourage us. Ignore them and keep pushing forward.

Garfield| 2.11.12 @ 4:12PM

Santorum doesn't have the ability to rally people like Reagan did.

The only one we have running in this race that can do something like that is Newt Gingrich.

Romney had to bus people in so he would have people cheering for him.

TommyFrisco| 2.11.12 @ 12:16PM

Thanks for the update, Mr. Antle. I wish I could have been there.

My hopes are that Gingrich will have an opportunity to explain his baggage as being given to him by Democrats and the GOP rulers who want to maintain the status quo in DC. Santorum's voting record is that of someone wanting to maintain the status quo for the Republican party. The voting turnout so far in this primary has only been higher than 2008 in South Carolina and northern Florida, areas where Gingrich won. Romney and Santorum have won in areas with lower voter turnout than in 2008. Doesn't that indicate who can best motivate the voters in November? Of course, that can only happen if the conservative media will stop with their distorted attacks on Gingrich.

martin j smith| 2.11.12 @ 12:24PM

So roger you think that any of our possible nominees would not be a better President than Obama. Let me tell you a secret : The formula is a combination the Nominee, the message.the inspiration, and the Republican Establishment total support for a winning election to defeat Obama. No half hearted efforts are acceptable. And a willingness to take on Obama in debates oand on the airwaves toe to toe. That is the winning combination.

Ward Bond| 2.11.12 @ 12:47PM

We can win -and by a landslide. But when we get a nominee we are ALL going to get behind him in FULL support. What obama wants to do to us is unthinkable. We all hang together or we'll all hang separately.

RJ| 2.11.12 @ 2:52PM

That's the spirit, Ward. I am with you 100%. My main concern about the election is that Obama is using the taxpayers' line of credit to buy votes. This election is going to be between the Takers versus the Makers and we cannot afford to lose.

I have had enough of condescending, arrogant nitwits using government to boss us around and steal from us. I will support whoever the GOP puts up against Obama, but I really want a candidate who will cut down the size of government and get out of our daily lives.

Garfield| 2.11.12 @ 4:23PM

I will not support Obamney, I will not support a candidate that repeatedly lies to our faces, whom in reality has no intention of repealing Obamneycare.

I will not support one Soros approved candidate to replace another.

Roger| 2.11.12 @ 12:54PM

Martin J Smith-I do think they would all be better than the current occupant. That is not a hard test to pass. Just saying I don't see any of the three main contenders winning. They will paint Romney as Montgomery Burns(though I guess you could also compare Obama to Smithers). Santorum will be painted as a lunatic. Newt,well we all know.
None of these candidates has what it takes sadly.

TommyFrisco| 2.11.12 @ 1:59PM

Roger,
If you truly want to see Obama defeated in November, you will cease and desist your message of gloom and doom.
I, respectfully, ask that you do us all a favor and keep your thoughts to yourself unless you have something informative and/or positive to say about our candidates.

Rick V.| 2.11.12 @ 2:46PM

Tommy, I have to reluctantly agree to some extent with Roger. The MSM still worships at the altar of Obama. I disagree with Roger that none of the Republicans "have what it takes" for the simple reason that none of them are Obama. Despite all their collective flaws, I prefer Santorum on principle, literally and figuratively. But, as I 've said here before, while Obama is as big a fraud as the Wizard of Oz, he's still pulling all the levers. As long as he keeps redistributing the paychecks of the employed to the grasping hands of (fill in the blank), he'll cruise to re-election.

Garfield| 2.11.12 @ 4:10PM

I think Gingrich can beat Obama, remember folks Obama has a record and has baggage too.

Gingrich would be more than willing to go after Obama on Obama's baggage.

Then there is the fact that Obama can't attack Gingrich on some of the "supposed baggage," because it would end up hurting Obama more.

Who would the public be angrier with? Someone that once worked as a consultant for Freddie Mac, or someone that used their position as a US Senator to protect Freddie Mac from being auditted?

I'm guessing it would hurt Obama a lot more than Gingrich.

Occam's Tool| 2.13.12 @ 12:13AM

The solution to winning is to play dirrrttttty. Myself, I want to know if Obummer had a membership in the gay men's club while married to Mooch. If he does, plaster it. Steal the video of his toasting the Palestinian terrorists out of the LA Times vault. Slam Reverend Wright hard, and show video of him attending church there.

Attack hard, dirty, and in the nads 24/7. Screw civility. The man is a socialist and pro-terror whenever he can be. He's a scumbag, as is Panetta. I'd feel a helluva lot more comfortable with Mitt (the Congress can control him as he will be on a short leash) if I knew he would attack Obama with the panache he has shown to Newt.

Tom| 2.11.12 @ 1:46PM

Interesting that when Ron Paul won the last two CPAC straw polls, it was deemed 'irrelevant'. But now that he is not participating, it is relevant again? More media spin and baloney.

Paul Zummo | 2.11.12 @ 2:08PM

Yeah, the media continue to ignore the spectacular rising star that is Ron Paul. His zero wins in the primaries and caucuses demonstrate that the man is simply catching fire and is an unstoppable force, yet the MSM doesn't want to hear any of it.

C Bowen| 2.11.12 @ 3:04PM

Republicans rarely have anything to do with conservatism.

I mean, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich voted to fund Planned Parenthood year after year, but I heard some Republicans try to pretend they were strong pro-lifers. Romney, now his wife actually gave privately to Planned Parenthood, so I guess that counts as Pro-life too amongst Republicans.

Conservatives think differently however.

Garfield| 2.11.12 @ 4:06PM

I don't think either Santorum or Gingrich would knowingly have voted for a bill with Planned Parenthood funding in it. Most likely it was something that got stuffed into a bill in the dead of night.

Also Gingrich hasn't been in government for a while, so I don't get this planned parenthood funding garbage. If he wasn't in the House or Senate, how could he vote for planned parenthood funding?

C Bowen | 2.11.12 @ 7:15PM

Naive, Garfield.

Public funding of abortion via Planned Parenthood has been going on for decades, since the 70s, its hardly a new issue to serious conservatives.

Republicans of course just learned about it yesterday--guessing you are a Republican garfield? Reagan, Bush, so called conservatives, never seemed to care to actually do anything about the issue save talk tough.

And if Newt and Santorum did not know they were voting for budgets that included funding for abortion, then they are not fit for elective office.

Garfield| 2.12.12 @ 12:38PM

Seriously, how about you stop and consider how everything else gets stuffed into bills in the dead of night at the last minute...

I'm not being naive, I'm pointing out how corruption in DC often works.

Clint| 2.11.12 @ 5:15PM

We Are Being Set Up By The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges For The Ruling Elites' Frontman Mittens Romney.

These Are The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges Who Gave Us The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain Of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,McCain-Lieberman,Gang Of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003,TARP.

Now They Are Trying To Give Us RomneyCare,TARP, Cynical Flip-Flops On Abortion, Gays, Refuses to Sign Pro-Life Pledge, Illegal Immigrants, "Little Chain Saw Al" At Bain, Crony Capitalism Campaign Money Trail.....

The Stupid Party Heads Over The Cliff Again.

Dai Alanye | 2.11.12 @ 4:45PM

RonPaul often wins unregulated polls of this type, simply by packing them with his accolytes, but this time Romney managed to pay the attendance fees and transportation for more people.

That's how we should look at the result -- Mitt likely bought himself another election.

Clint| 2.11.12 @ 5:46PM

Israel Firster Dai Job Thinks Gingrich's Rabbi, Sheldon Adelson Couldn't Buy Enough Acolytes To Beat Romney's Acolytes.

Occam's Tool| 2.13.12 @ 12:16AM

Clint, I keep waiting for the philosemitism.

Roger| 2.11.12 @ 2:45PM

My message of doom and gloom is simple reality. Unless we get another option. What has any of these individuals done that shows they can win? Romney only wins through huge campaign $ or when the electorate is overwhelmingly LDS. Santorum has shown no ability to compete in atates that matter. Maybe he will. But I hate most of his message(Bush style big govt.conservatism,more war,and forcing his morals on others). Newt is a pos who I can't abide by. Paul is the only person in the race who I really have much respect for.

Garfield| 2.11.12 @ 4:01PM

Ron Paul's foreign policy is complete and total insanity.

He can't see why we can't allow a bunch of fanatics to get their hands on Nuclear Weapons.

You can't always reason with people, Ron Paul doesn't understand that fact.

Clint| 2.11.12 @ 5:27PM

Read George Washington's Farewell Address, Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address, The Old Right And Get Back To Us.

" George Will, "Today, we have a very different kind of foreign policy. It’s called Wilsonian. And the premise of the Bush Doctrine is that America must spread democracy, because our national security depends upon it. And America can spread democracy. It knows how. It can engage in national building. This is conservative or not?"

William F. Buckley, " It’s not at all conservative. It’s anything but conservative. It’s not conservative at all, inasmuch as conservatism doesn’t invite unnecessary challenges. It insists on coming to terms with the world as it is …”

The Tea Party Rebellion Is In Maine.

Garfield| 2.12.12 @ 12:39PM

Iran is ran by fanatics, you can't reason with fanatics.

Occam's Tool| 2.13.12 @ 12:19AM

You lost there, too, Clint. Move on, putz.

You know, I love watching you lose. Many of us in Minnesota have been watching the Packers lose to the Giants over and over...same way I feel about Paul.

Garfield| 2.11.12 @ 3:39PM

I think Gingrich is the only candidate in the race that can beat Obama. I think Obama would have a hard time attacking Gingrich on "baggage" without it backfiring.

Gingrich as a private citizen did consulting work for Freddie Mac.

Obama as a United States Senator, used his position to protect Fannae Mae (not going to bother looking up spelling) and Freddie Mac.

Which do you think this hurts more? I would say it hurts Obama more.

The infamous Couch commercial, I don't see how Obama can attack Gingrich on this without it blowing up in his face. Gingrich can readily point out that he dropped his support of cap & trade when got a copy of the bill to read.

Obama used his position as President to shut down oil drilling, his staff committed plagerism and fraud, etc.

Who does this hurt more? I would say it hurts Obama, not Gingrich.

The ethics investigation might hurt Gingrich at first, until people find out that the IRS later cleared Gingrich of all charges. That means the "ethics investigation" was a political witchhunt orchestrated by Nancy Pelosi. Seriously, this may end up helping Gingrich in the long run, showing how he personally was a victim of a corrupt Washington DC.

Looks more like they wanted Gingrich out because he refused to let them do "business as usual."

Dai Alanye | 2.11.12 @ 4:51PM

Newt always manages to do himself in, so even if he comes back he'll only be one major gaffe from failure. Lack of discipline gets him every time.

Garfield| 2.11.12 @ 5:06PM

Many of Gingrich's "gaffes" are remarks he made that the media twisted totally out of context.

Also Gingrich didn't do himself in. Romney and the establishment did a coordinated hit job on Gingrich. Now they are claiming Gingrich did it to himself, which everyone that has been paying attention knows is a bunch of bull.

Roger| 2.11.12 @ 3:46PM

Newt is business as usual. WTF is the speaker of the house if not establishement? Besides,Newt did himself in. That moon colony thing,his outrageous court plan,as well as the pathetic amnesty idea.

Garfield| 2.11.12 @ 3:56PM

Yeah he is so business as usual that the establishment used trumped up charges (and the IRS later cleared Gingrich so I can say that the charges were a farce), in an attempt to damage him and get rid of him.

Newt Gingrich was so go along and get along that the establishment actually staged a coup to get him kicked out of being speaker.

So it's clear he's not only not part of the establishment, but he also was a victim of Washington D.C.'s corrupt establishment because he kept upsetting their apple carts.

Then we have as he's pointed out, a lot of his "unrealistic" pie-in-the-sky ideas became reality.

Finally, something tells me you haven't even bothered to look at what Gingrich's plans actually are, if you did you would find his ideas are not as outrageous as you were led to believe by the Obamabots and Obamneybots.

Nick| 2.12.12 @ 11:40AM

Garfield,

You're doing a little bit of spinning there, yourself.

The coup against then Speaker Gingrich was lead by the conservatives from the Class of '94, not the "establishment." They did this because in order to cut deals with Bubba 'The Rapist" Clinton, Gingrich was letting the budgets for things like the National Endowment for the Arts explode, rather than ending them.

He was also letting the bums who had nothing to do with taking back the House, like Shuster, Lewis, Young, et al, become committee chairman. They were/are just as bad as the democrats.

Speaker Gingrich let the "establishment" take over the "Republican Revolution" of 1994. This is why the freshman of that class ousted him, in 1998. Of course, many of those same freshman were corrupted by President Bush's administration, early on, when they let the budget caps go by the wayside.

This is why we must make incumbency a dirty word. Anyone who spends more than a dozen years in the same office, needs to move on.

Garfield| 2.12.12 @ 12:44PM

It got Clinton to go along with entitlement reforms didn't it?

You have to remember that sometimes you have to compromise on little stuff to get your core principles pushed through.

Seriously, we can argue about whether or not Gingrich made mistakes on this or that, fine. However, to call the man corrupt, when everyone knows the ethics violations were a political witchhunt, is extremely dishonest.

Nick| 2.12.12 @ 2:13PM

Garfield,

Straw man. I didn't call Mr. Gingrich "corrupt," did I? We agree that those phony charges were a witch-hunt.

This doesn't make it okay to abandon Constitutional government by increasing funding for un-Constitutional programs. Or, to let the "establishment" RINOs take over the committee chairmanships. I notice that you didn't address this point of mine.

It's not like he was in President Reagan's shoes, battling the evil empire for the survival of our way of life. He was battling Bubba "The Rapist" Clinton. Mr. Gingrich did not have to make all of the concessions that he made.

Your statement that Speaker Gingrich "was a victim of Washington D.C.'s corrupt establishment" is just plain wrong. It was the conservatives who pushed him out.
Admit it, and move on.

Garfield| 2.15.12 @ 5:29PM

Actually to throw it back in your face, isn't the person that lead the ethics investigation farce Nancy Pelosi.

Isn't one of the people that was behind the coup, John DeLay, whom got kicked out of Government for corruption.

Isn't the last time we had a balanced budget was when Newt Gingrich was the Speaker of the House.

Sorry but this can easily be turned around and used as a positive for Gingrich.

Nick| 2.15.12 @ 5:52PM

Garfield,

I don't see what any of that has to do with what I wrote. I already agreed that the ethics charges were bogus.

The fact still remains that your claim that then-Speaker Gingrich was ousted by the D.C. Establishment is just wrong.

I think you meant Tom Delay, by the way.

Roger| 2.11.12 @ 4:41PM

Conservatives ousted Newt because he kept getting his ass handed to him by BJ.

Garfield| 2.11.12 @ 5:01PM

Explains why we had no more balanced budgets after Newt was ousted...

Seriously, Romney is the absolute worst candidate we can nominate, he is the easiest for Obama to attack with his class warfare rhetoric.

Romney means Obamacare can't be used against Obama.

Romney is our weakest candidate.

Santorum has issues with us as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLQnoVpkyqc

I'm guessing he's changed his mind since then, but the point is that he has his baggage too.

Gingrich is able to rally people and in all honesty his "baggage" is harder for Obama to go after without it potentially backfiring.

What is more, Gingrich scares the establishment on both sides.

Kingofthenet| 2.11.12 @ 4:50PM

Mittens not to allow ANYONE to be more Conservative, is now Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious Conservative!

Garfield| 2.11.12 @ 5:01PM

If anyone is gullable enough to believe Mittens, I have a bridge to sell them on Saturn.

Oldefarte| 2.11.12 @ 5:18PM

If these Republican candidates don't begin to talk about, philosophically disect, and define Obama [instead of critisizing each other to Obama's benefit] then this statement ['....Talking to attendees, there is a lot of concern about whether the eventual Republican nominee will actually beat Barack Obama. People don't exactly expect Obama to win, but there is some nervousness....'] will prove truthful. The ony candidate doing so to my knowledge is Ginguich!!!!!!!

Garfield| 2.11.12 @ 6:10PM

You can blame Romney for turning everyone against each other.

kraldiziler | 2.12.12 @ 7:01PM

Seriously, Romney is the absolute worst candidate we can nominate, he is the easiest for Obama to attack with his class warfare rhetoric.

Romney means Obamacare can't be used against Obama.

Romney is our weakest candidate.

More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III

http://spectator.org/blog/2012/02/11/quick-hits-from-cpac

ADVERTISEMENT

The Spectacle Blog

More on Lerner Pleading the Fifth

Kaylin Bugos | 4:27PM

Did Virginia Republicans Just Elect Terry McAuliffe?

Ross Kaminsky | 3:41PM

Lois Lerner Will Take the Fifth

Ross Kaminsky | 3:27PM

Cook Insists: No Income Shifting, Tax Avoidance

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 3:01PM

Democrats Outraged Over IRS, But Not the Right Aspect of It

Kaylin Bugos | 2:10PM

What Happens If the Uninsured Can’t Register Under Obamacare?

Patrick Ryan | 1:22PM

Whitehouse Berates Republicans for Causing Tornadoes

Claire Healey | 1:11PM

UPDATED: Former IRS Chief Refuses to Apologize

Kaylin Bugos | 12:45PM

Latest Headlines

From the Obama Ministry of Truth

Ben Stein|44 comments

Despite the WaPost, Benghazi Is a Major Scandal

Quin Hillyer|40 comments

IRS Union Chief Stonewalls

Jeffrey Lord|54 comments

McCain-Feingold Gave Us the IRS Scandal

Ross Kaminsky|95 comments

Anyone Still Believe Me?

Aaron Goldstein|27 comments

The Book We Still Can’t Spare

Lars Walker|41 comments

Delivering Serbs to the Wolves

Doug Bandow|17 comments

Wincing at Cumberbatch

James Bowman|8 comments

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.