A Litmus Test For Hard-Core Conservatives
The three-day annual meeting of the Conservative Political Action Committee is underway in Washington, D.C.
CPAC has become the keystone of the conservative movement and beyond the usual meeting and greeting, the major purpose of the conference is to promote conservative principles. Speakers include the four remaining Republican presidential candidates — John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul.
There are two major changes at the 35th annual meeting: Ann Coulter was disinvited after several embarrassing speeches that highlighted her wingnuttery and diverted attention. And after years of being in the driver’s seat, hard-core conservatives find themselves beleaguered and deeply concerned about how much say they will have in the 2008 elections after having had an outsized presence in previous years.
Although it is not on the agenda and I suspect a goodly number of CPAC members would deny it, the biggest issue facing this crowd is whether to embrace McCain, who has been the subject of vitriolic attacks by Coulter, among other right-wing demagogues, over not being conservative enough.
As I have written early and often, as the presumptive nominee, McCain cannot win the November election without at least the tacit support of CPACers.
Captain Ed Morrissey, among other bloggers, will be reporting from CPAC. It will be interesting to see if the big issue is even acknowledged, let alone addressed, or is it going to be three days of make believe and kissy face?
opinions powered by SendLove.to
8 Responses to “A Litmus Test For Hard-Core Conservatives”
I applaud the tension to reposition the GOP closer to the middle. There are many conservative ideas that don't get heard by moderate independents because it is obscured by hate and anger
Its a good sign that they disinvited Coulter— it would be even more embarassing for her to show up this year and repeat her comment about voting for Clinton if McCain becomes the party's nominee for '08! I thought after last year that conservatives had no shame, so its a relief to find out that they do.
[...] The Litmus Test [...]
I understand they are holding CPAC at a Denny's this year.
Talk about collapse!
As I heard someone calling in to NPR say accurately, the GOP has been moving leftward for several years and is now Dems Lite (big government, special interest groups of their own), and has long disaffected those who want a truly conservative alternative to the Democratic Party's liberalism, entitlement-welfare-state, massive interventionism and special-interest-politics model.
As for McCain's speech:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/…
Come on DLS, GOP is just as special interest politic oriented, more so I'd say than the Dems. And GOP entitlements just go to different folks. You can litmus test the budget deficit to verify that.
“Come on DLS, GOP is just as special interest politic oriented, more so I'd say than the Dems. And GOP entitlements just go to different folks. You can litmus test the budget deficit to verify that.”
I apologize here if elsewhere (on another thread) I had said that the GOP indeed has their own special interests. The criticism of the I heard on the radio when I was out on the road today is worth mentioning again here. (That was listening to NPR, not to Limbaugh, who was on at the same time; I actually avoid most of the conservative and lib-rad talk shows because they're all about the people hearing themselves talk while often interrupting and sometimes abusing others).
The criticism includes not only that the GOP has moved leftward over the past several years and become more Big Government-loving than ever, but that it mirrors the Democrats' special-interest-group politics, not simply appealing to its traditional groups (business, veterans, farmers) but taking money and giving its special interests special influence. What we have seen in particular are sellouts to the business community, especially larger businesses, who are behind the drive on the GOP or right side against immigration reform in favor of amnesty (to keep labor costs down). At the same time, there are minor issues personally with the Bush administration (major to the victims) in that many resent how, for example, vets have been refused VA medical coverage for injuries sustained while in Iraq. (That's not a legitimate way to cut costs in my and other people's book!)
With the GOP it's not so much entitlements except in certain cases (farm bill stuff) but something at once more broad in scale and more corrupt (ethanol money into the pockets of ADM, for example, a contemporary GOP “alternative energy” concept). Certain earmarks and things like them like dedicated tax breaks are not entitlements, but outright gifts.
Should have said the GOP has special interests here, too, on this thread, in other words