The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

CPAC 2014 Idea

Posted on | March 2, 2013 | 40 Comments

by Smitty

This year’s CPAC is a done deal, with the usual kerfuffles about groups that are too sexuality-centric (GOProud) and too controversial (Pamela Geller). I’d favor an improvement in the Rules of Engagement that supports bringing in more people with whom I don’t necessarily agree, as long as there are ground rules about how we all disagree agreeably. If you really think the Apollo moonshot was a hoax, OK, set up your table. Just don’t be disruptive. As an academic exercise, I’d love to hear a full exposition on how Sharia finance works, and think it a shame that anyone feels unwelcome.

Then again, I’m not an organizer for the event. Maybe a follow-on event, DPAC, could be staged for those deemed too exotic, replete with a talk from Chopra.

More seriously, there are guys like Reynolds, Jacobson, Althouse, and Volokh who would be both great to meet, and wonderful to hear. Specific topics of interest:

  • Have the Precious Bodily Fluids of the SCOTUS been terminally polluted?
  • Should the entire Department of Justice be cashiered?
  • If we started now, could we re-ratify the Constitution in 2037 for its 250th anniversary, legitimizing (some of) the Progressive drift over the last century, so that conservatives can relax?

via Mind Numbed Robot

Category: CPAC

Comments

40 Responses to “CPAC 2014 Idea”

  1. DaveO
    March 2nd, 2013 @ 3:39 pm

    Perhaps for CPAC 2014, GOProud can give a presentation on the mainstreaming of pedophilia, and why sexuality triumphs over ideology, but we should still trust them anyway.

  2. gvanderleun
    March 2nd, 2013 @ 4:47 pm

    You see it is just that attitude, that jerk of the knee, that has doomed not only the Republican Party but the Conservatives as well. It’s a sickness much like the one the progressives have. Enjoy your time in the boneyard of history. It doesn’t end.

  3. smitty
    March 2nd, 2013 @ 5:02 pm

    And perhaps such a presentation, itself, would be the most appropriate criticism of their ideas. I know I wouldn’t sit for such.

  4. Will Profit
    March 2nd, 2013 @ 5:27 pm

    It’s a shame CPAC has co opted the Dem/Lib/Prog strategy of shutting out opinions they either don’t agree with or don’t want to hear. S.E. Cupp would seem to be a good fit for them this go around.

  5. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    March 2nd, 2013 @ 5:41 pm

    Treat it like ComicCon. I would bar Stormfront and NAMBLA, but basically any legal organization can show up and set up a table provided they don’t disrupt things. So if CAIR, Daily Kos, the DNC, etc. want to set up shop, so be it. Let them (provided they pay the fee and do not disrupt things).

    The theme of the show is set by the invited speakers. That list should be determined by the sponsors. I have no problem with Grover Norquist speaking (I like his fiscal message) provided he is not throwing Pam Geller under a bus. I have no problem with not making Kris Kristiekreme a speaker, I do have a problem of going out of their way to publically disinvite him (how does this help?).

    Beyond that: Disagree with the list, set up your own conference.

  6. TR
    March 2nd, 2013 @ 5:51 pm

    I went to see Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer (at CPAC 2010) ) and give their talks at Temple Univ. twice in the last few years. Also enjoyed seeing her present Pamela present her Ground Zero Mosque documentary in NYC and low and behold the GZ Mosque has lost its funding and its Imam promoter is facing charges of financial impropriety.

    As it should be. SIOA and FDI are still standing should continue to organize focused events.

    “Something is happening here but you dont know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones?”

  7. Has CPAC gone politically correct? | Thinking Americanist
    March 2nd, 2013 @ 6:18 pm

    […] Shrugs, Jihad Watch, The Other McCain, American […]

  8. DaveO
    March 2nd, 2013 @ 6:41 pm

    Neither would I. Having seen Obama and Reid offer up the end to DADTDP and gay marriage (in dribs and drabs) and then watching GOProud eagerly become Dem attack dogs, I’m unwilling to give GOProud the time of day. GOProud’s principle of loyalty is to its sexuality, not ideology. In that, GOProud is demonstrably allied with the Dems.
    I suppose, based on the wailing and gnashing of teeth about boneyards, that once again Conservatives must cede ground in the interest of Big Tent Politics. The rough and real thing about Big Tent Politics is the Conservatives getting shivved by not-Conservative Republicans during political fights.
    In American elections, folks seeking election take on the garb of Christians and Conservatives. Given that maxim, why should CPAC permit anyone who says they are conservative, and acts like a Dem?

  9. Zilla of the Resistance
    March 2nd, 2013 @ 6:59 pm

    Geller’s banning has gross Grover’s and pigfaced Suhail’s greasy treasonous islamic supremacist fingerprints smeared all over it. Screw them.

    I would not want to be anywhere that Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer are not welcome. CPAC, as I have pointed out for over two years now, is the tool of stealth jihadis and islamic supremacist dhimmies. Screw them. They can go join satan al and pedo in hell. They can take their islamic supremacism and dhimmitude and SHOVE IT!

    Remember how Stacy has previously stated that he regretted that one time that he did not stand up for Pamela Geller? I do.

    #IStandWithPamelaGeller is the hashtag, by the way, and it goes with this one: #SIOA.

    “Conservatives” need to get off of their knees and stop kissing the genocidal mohammedeen’s raised asses, or pretending not to notice when their PC thugs cause our stupid side to hang one of our own, who is one of the few brave and EFFECTIVE voices that we have, out to dry.

    What would Andrew Breitbart do? Most big righty bloggers treated Pamela and the fight against the Ground Zero Victory Mosque as something to be avoided, but not Andrew Breitbart, he stood up against the islamic supremacists and those who seek to silence people like Pamela Geller. And here we are a year and one day after his death and Pamela is being marginalized by what proclaims to be the biggest “Conservative” shindig of the year, and WHO HAS HER BACK? Or perhaps the more pertinent question is who doesn’t? And what WOULD Breitbart do? He didn’t bail on her when he was alive, but the people who tell us all to “be Breitbart” sure seem to be eager to do exactly that.

  10. Jerry Wilson
    March 2nd, 2013 @ 7:16 pm

    Here, I’ll solve all of CPAC’s problems in one fell swoop.

    Move it to San Francisco.

    Let’s see who shows up then.

  11. Thomas L. Knapp
    March 2nd, 2013 @ 8:19 pm

    If it referred to the Islamic community center located several blocks from Ground Zero as “the Ground Zero Mosque” then it wasn’t a “documentary.”

  12. Zilla of the Resistance
    March 2nd, 2013 @ 8:55 pm

    Tee hee.

  13. Jerry Wilson
    March 2nd, 2013 @ 9:54 pm

    I’m still waiting for my CPAC invitation to DJ the ’80s Christian rock dance party.

    Better chance of that happening than being allowed into BlogBash.

  14. Adjoran
    March 2nd, 2013 @ 10:18 pm

    Yeah, what Zilla said.

  15. Adjoran
    March 2nd, 2013 @ 10:24 pm

    Mary Katherine Ham is taking a lot of flak for disagreeing with Rush about his “ashamed” remark (she said it isn’t going to win any converts to conservatism, and I suspect she is right). And anyone who mentions that perhaps Sarah Palin ought not have gotten involved in the MO Senate primary finds out really fast what it feels like to be a Danish cartoonist.

  16. Adjoran
    March 2nd, 2013 @ 10:31 pm

    “I’m not an organizer for the event” is a non sequitur. I’m not a producer for MSNBC, but I have a choice to watch or not, to promote it or not, to support it or not.

    Of course, none of the attendees have anything at all to do with who is invited or not invited, do they? They will only be there, holding the cloaks.

  17. Zilla of the Resistance
    March 2nd, 2013 @ 10:55 pm

    The landing gear from one of the hijacked planes smashed through the roof of the building of the former Burlington Coat factory, it was a part of the area damaged in the islamic terrorist attack; the only word that could benefit from a change to make it more accurate is “mosque” because the thing that slumlord Rauf wanted to build was actually a Rabat.

  18. Thomas L. Knapp
    March 2nd, 2013 @ 10:58 pm

    Zilla,

    You might want to look up the meaning of the term “ground zero.”

    The Islamic community was not a mosque, and it was not at ground zero. Any film referring to it as “the Ground Zero Mosque” was fiction. Period.

  19. Reynolds88
    March 2nd, 2013 @ 11:00 pm

    SE Cupp, MK Ham: media sisters
    Sarah Palin, Pamela Geller: Women Warriors

  20. K-Bob
    March 2nd, 2013 @ 11:01 pm

    Here’s an analysis of the CPAC vs. Geller dustup.

    Couldn’t have anything to do with a new, improved, more totalitarian long march through the institutions now, could it?

  21. K-Bob
    March 2nd, 2013 @ 11:06 pm

    You know, in programming, you have to learn that using 0.0 is a great way to introduce errors that are a be-eye-itch to find.

    That’s why whenever you make something in the real world, or try to measure it, you have to specify something called a “tolerance value.” So here’s reality:

    Ground Zero is New York. Downtown.

    That’s well within the tolerance of discussion over a ground-zero Mosque.

  22. Reynolds88
    March 2nd, 2013 @ 11:07 pm

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/06/Founder-Of-Ground-Zero-Mosque-Accused-Of-Taking-3-Million-From-Mosque-Fund

    Nappy, your arguments are really pointless.

  23. K-Bob
    March 2nd, 2013 @ 11:09 pm

    People confuse CPAC with The Republican Party.

    They expect a Big Tent.

    CPAC should define its own tent rigorously, and anyone not wanting to be in it should set up their own conference, like you pointed out.

  24. K-Bob
    March 2nd, 2013 @ 11:19 pm

    You’re correct.

    I wonder (in general) why are so many people trying so hard to turn the Conservative label into something it is not? Why is it so damn hard for them to just do like I do, and admit they’re not a conservative?

    Lightning doesn’t strike. I don’t get thrown out of conservative gatherings. They listen to me respectfully. So what’s the big deal? I see ZERO advantage in trying to make it look like I’m the conservative, and the Reagan folks are “out of touch.”

    The fact is, Reagan hit the sweet spot for your rank-and-file conservative. People like me don’t have some grand pass to tell millions of those folks they are all wrong. So I don’t even insult their intelligence (like Ms. Cupp) by trying.

    I caucus with conservatives. That works very, very well. Trying to change them makes them angry, makes them think I’m a leftist infiltrator, and makes them stop trusting anything I have to say. Who needs that? I don’t understand these “conservatives need to be more like leftists” people at all.

  25. Eric Ashley
    March 3rd, 2013 @ 2:57 am

    Vanderleun, perhaps you can explain how annoying gays who are a tiny, tiny percentage of the pop. and an even tinier percentage would even consider voting GOP is some sort of horrible bit of strategy on par with Pickett’s Charge.

    A completely amoral consultant would attack GOProud as a good way of advancing his candidate of choice. Macchiavelli would be out there slamming GOProud.

    Someone with principles would attack GOProud as an evil organization.

  26. Finrod Felagund
    March 3rd, 2013 @ 4:46 am

    I’m tired of people like you throwing gay conservatives under the bus. I’d stand with the fabulous guys of hillbuzz.com before I’d stand with you.

    Here is a link to GOProud’s What We Believe: http://www.goproud.org/site/c.evKXIaONIlJcH/b.8478403/k.929C/What_We_Believe.htm

    Tell me that there aren’t at least 8 of those 10 items that you can support whole-heartedly, and I’ll quote you Ronald Reagan: “The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor.”

  27. Finrod Felagund
    March 3rd, 2013 @ 4:49 am

    How about you criticize what they actually say they believe, not what you say they believe?

    http://www.goproud.org/site/c.evKXIaONIlJcH/b.8478403/k.929C/What_We_Believe.htm

  28. smitty
    March 3rd, 2013 @ 7:07 am

    Jerry, there is some tease here about the contradiction between “Christian” and “rock dance party,” but I’ll let you figure out how to maximize the humor of a self-mocking, pious prig delivery of the joke.

  29. purusha
    March 3rd, 2013 @ 10:10 am

    If we started now, could we re-ratify the Constitution in 2037 for its 250th anniversary, legitimizing (some of) the Progressive drift over the last century, so that conservatives can relax?

    I’ve got a better idea. Why don’t you remove the amendments which gave the vote to blacks and women? Then you can dispense with the voter ID charade.

  30. Smitty talks CPAC, and I get on a soapbox and rant at young people | God's Own Crunk
    March 3rd, 2013 @ 10:23 am

    […] via CPAC 2014 Idea : The Other McCain. […]

  31. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    March 3rd, 2013 @ 10:43 am

    You do that by rigorously controlling your speakers. That I totally agree with. The show is your message.

    But as for people coming to CPAC, open the doors, you want more not less. That is the whole point, to win converts. You will get a few libtards and if they act up throw them out.

  32. McGehee
    March 3rd, 2013 @ 11:34 am

    Maybe the problem is that people expect such events to be more than your standard office meeting on a grand scale, with the actual results writ proportionally small.

  33. Finrod Felagund
    March 3rd, 2013 @ 2:29 pm

    If we could take the vote away from trolls, our country would be a much better place.

  34. K-Bob
    March 3rd, 2013 @ 5:28 pm

    If you mean the general attendees, sure, the more the merrier.

  35. Wombat_socho
    March 3rd, 2013 @ 6:06 pm

    You’re an ignorant idiot. Bye now.

  36. Bob Belvedere
    March 3rd, 2013 @ 6:41 pm

    Agreed. The ACU is putting on this show and has a right to invite and not invite who they want to. However, they should be called-out if they claim that they are open-minded.

    I wish there were an alternative conference because the stain of that Dhimmi Norquist – who is not simply, like GOProud, someone I disagree with, but is, in fact, providing aid and comfort to our enemies – has tarnished CPAC so deeply.

  37. DaveO
    March 3rd, 2013 @ 7:25 pm

    I criticize what they did, not what they say, same as I do for Obama. I am truly an equal opportunity critic. So platforms are meaningless unless there is action backing it up. GOProud and its leadership have an observable disconnect between their words and their actions.

    GOProud’s purpose, from a strategic view, is to be material for barter – gain the black church, get rid of GOProud. Although it may take 3 years to effect the trade.

  38. K-Bob
    March 3rd, 2013 @ 9:21 pm

    True. GOProud isn’t trying to destroy our entire nation from within. At least, that’s not their aim.

    (People can argue over their effect, I guess.)

    There’s no excuse for Norquist. More importantly, it looks like there’s no excuse anymore for people who are defending him. Not unless he steps the f*** up and answers these charges, which are not made with malice, but with great sadness, by people like Horowitz.

  39. Jerry Wilson
    March 4th, 2013 @ 12:06 am

    Eh, Jesus’ first miracle was turning water into wine at a wedding reception to keep the party going. It’s about time people realized livin’ ain’t necessarily sinnin’.

  40. Eric Ashley
    March 4th, 2013 @ 1:56 am

    You didn’t really use ‘Fah-bul-lous!!’ in connection with gays did you?

    And if GOProud wants to vote with me, I’m happy in the same way that Reagan was happy to receive the Bircher’s votes.