Thursday, February 7, 2008

CPAC: Thursday a.m. blogging

UPDATE: Pam of Atlas Shrugs last night in the Omni Shoreham lobby:

She's so shy and retiring. We're trying to get her to come out her shell a little more ...

On my way into the lobby this morning, I was greeted by Shane Greer of the Young Britons Foundation. Came down to breakfast at Robert's Restaurant in the Omni Shoreham. Then had a brief interview with David Keene of the American Conservative Union. Then said "hi" to Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Associated as he arrived. Great event.
Just hanging out with College Republican activists Dan Lipian and Rachel Coolidge when who should show up but Marcus Epstein of the Robert Taft Club. Next, we saw Ruth Malhotra with Orit Sklar. Everybody is here. Estimated attendance: 6,800.
* * * * *
Woke up at 5 a.m. and couldn't get back to sleep. Tried reading Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" a while, but kept thinking about what I have to write for today.

I'm crashing on the sofa at Matthew Vadum's place on Connecticut Avenue, two blocks from the Omni Shoreham. Matthew's asleep -- snoring slightly -- and his cat, "Dr. Gonzo," is prowling around. Of course, the name "Dr. Gonzo" reminds me to check in at Anita Thompson's Owl Farm Blog, where Anita (a Hillary supporter) is mocking Obama:
As I've said before, I love the sound of Obama's gorgeous voice, even it consists mainly of vacuous rhetoric.
Heh. Last night was fun, convening in the lobby bar of the Omni Shoreham -- me, Matthew, Matt Keller (who did a "Draft Newt" site last year), Pamela Geller, Kirby Wilbur, Kirby's producer Matt (lots of Matts around) and some friends I knew from last year's YAF West Coast Leadership Conference. Just about closing time, we finally convinced blues legend Ian Walters to favor us with some tunes on the piano. It was nice.

The press coverage of the Republican presidential campaign is almost uniformly atrocious. Here's a headline from Time's Web site:
McCain: Frail with the Far Right
Ask yourself a couple of questions:
  • Would Time magazine even admit the existence of a "Far Left," much less suggest that they were dissatisfied with a leading Democratic candidate?
  • In what sense are the 60-70% of Republicans who have voted against John McCain "far right"? Does this term refer to the supporters of Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee? Are the 28,000 Georgians who voted for Ron Paul "far right"?
No, apparently, Time has in mind three people in particular:
McCain spent the run-up to the nearly-national primary responding to blistering attacks from iconic conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh, James Dobson and Sean Hannity. While all three talk for a living — and their antipathy for McCain is an old saw — the impact of their comments was undeniable; even in his home state of Arizona, McCain lost self-described conservatives to Mitt Romney 47%-36%.
Two popular talk-show hosts and the founder of Focus on the Family (here's Dobson's explanation of why he can't vote for McCain) -- these people are "the far right" in America, according to Time.

What the term "far right" thus denotes, apparently, is that Limbaugh, Hannity and Dobson are dangerous extremists, whereas John McCain is merely "right-wing." That's the big-time journalism for which the publishers of Time are paying. Here's more:
But the real test of the gulf between McCain and conservatives — and his ability to bridge it — comes Thursday at the annual Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) conference in Washington. CPAC is the Lollapalooza of the Republican right, and its founder, David Keene, has been an outspoken critic of McCain's perceived anti-conservative transgressions on issues ranging from campaign finance reform (McCain's for it) to gun control (for it, in certain instances) to global warming (against it). As a result, McCain has routinely skipped the event; last year, he was booed in absentia.
Notice how this is all framed as "ooh, those wacky conservatives": Keene is "outspoken"! And why? Because of "perceived ... transgressions," an artful phrase, with overtones of the Inquisition.

Never once does Time give its readers a clear understanding that it is McCain who has attacked conservatives ("agents of intolerance," he called them) and not the other way around. According to Jay Carney's narrative, John McCain is the victim of "far right" intolerance.

Well ... the dawn is breaking out on Connecticut Avenue. Got to shower and get over to breakfast. Busy, busy.

Here's the CPAC schedule, here's NZ Bear's feeder (which doesn't include me), and here's a nice analysis by (far-right?) Ace of Spades of the basic problem between conservatives and Crazy Cousin John. Expect updates ....


  1. McCain really makes conservatives uneasy, but they need to support him in the general election or else we're really screwed.

  2. While I fully understand the angst of Conservatives in their policy opposition to John McCain blunders like Illegal immigration, Conservatives are beginning to amaze me in their inability to see the larger picture.

    While I also disagree with McCain on a dozen issues or so, the alternative is not just four years of 'sitting it out' as some have proposed.

    Many talk radio hosts have battled a McCain nomination. Even Focus On The Family Director Dr. Dobson (who I admire ) has declared his refusal to vote for McCain.

    This astonishes me because it’s the same as saying “if we don’t get the conservative I want, We’ll let the country go to hell in a hand basket.”

    This, in my opinion is very dangerous and makes our future prospects harder - since our children will be growing up in the aftermath of such a decision.

    Anti McCain pundits and commentators such as Rush Limbaugh have ventured the idea that perhaps we should sit this election out and let the Dems have a term in office, claiming it might pave the way for a future shot at a candidate he and others will like in four years.

    While I understand these expressions of dismay, I think it’s shortsighted. Imagine the damage our country will endure if Democrats control all three branches of government for 4 to 8 years. .

    This would give liberals what they will treat as a clear sign from America that is it ready to move sharply to the left. Conservatism will lose most of it’s teeth and the liberal agenda could easily reverse all of the progress we’ve made in the war on terror, Tax reduction, Pro Life, and other extremely important issue.

    We can always address the issue of immigration again in 4 years. What we cannot afford to see happen is a liberal agenda that makes illegal immigration the least of our country’s problems. Our country may be so torn up, it won’t have the time to even visit the issue, like we can today.

    There is no such thing as a quick recovery from 4 years of liberalism unchecked. We may be facing what will take years and years of damage to undo. What’s more, there’s no guarantee that it WILL be undone. The passage of even one single liberal law is extremely difficult to outlaw - as if Roe V Wade hasn’t taught us this already!

    Rush Limbaugh and others may revel in 4 years of liberal destruction as a talk radio host who can use the material, however all it takes is one liberal judge appointed to the Supreme Court to unravel the one ace we’ve achieved in the last 8 years. This doesn’t occur to me as a smart decision for Conservatives to be making..

    As Evangelical Conservatives know, Pride cometh before the fall, and I hope they will study that verse before deciding to approach this election with dismay rather than enthusiasm.

    Questioning McCain was right and highly useful for a time and a season. But there are greater threats looming on our horizon than John McCain.

    It’s time to put our differences aside and get with the business assuring our children, they will not grow up in a socialist, liberally dominated world. This may be our cross roads, and it is certainly no time to be staying home on Election Day.

    Danny Vice
    The Weekly Vice

    ThaLunatic Daily