CPAC Civil War: The Fight For the Soul of Conservatism

Conservatives seemed to be in disarray at this year's CPAC Convention, with a full blown war being waged for the soul of the Conservative movement. The fight was between the ultra-conservative, take no prisoners, cultural warriors club led by the likes of Glenn Beck, Dick Cheney, and Sarah Palin against the more moderate, "independent", big tent faction led by Ron Paul and Bob Barr.

The division and uncertainty was on full display in the CPAC Presidential Straw Poll, where the attendees voted on their 2012 presidential hopefuls. In a surprise to everyone, Ron Paul won the poll with a whopping 31%. Mitt Romney came in second with 22% and Sarah Palin came in a distant third with only 7%.

Here are the full results from the poll:

Texas Rep. Ron Paul - 31 percent
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney -- 22 percent
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin -- 7 percent
Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty - 6 percent
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich - 4 percent
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee -- 4 percent
Indiana Rep. Mike Pence - 5 percent
South Dakota Sen. John Thune -- 2 percent
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels -- 2 percent
Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum -- 2 percent
Mississippi Gov. Hailey Barbour - 1 percent
Other - 5 percent
Undecided - 6 percent


However, it has been reported that upon announcing Ron Paul as the winner the crowd erupted in to a chorus of "boos".

In his speech at the conference, Ron Paul, essentially a libertarian, rallied against government over reach but also against the dangers of neoconservatism. This seemed to be in direct conflict with the keynote speaker, Glenn Beck's, speech.

In his highly anticipated keynote speech Beck blasted fellow Republicans (including John McCain and Teddy Roosevelt) and called for purity in the Republican ranks. In fact, most of the major Republican speakers-Cheney, Armey, Bachmann, Coulter-not only stuck to their normal vicious and partisan attacks, but actually seemed to even up the ante. Why? The widespread pandering to the Tea Party movement that has been on display in the Republican party throughout 2010, not to mention the venom that courses through neoconservative veins at the mere thought of President Obama.

So which is it going to be, conservatives? The "big tent, independent" style of Ron Paul or the "take no prisoners, purity" approach of Beck and Palin?

Honestly, I think it has already been decided. All of the major, mainstream, best known Republican speakers-Beck,Cheney,Coulter-embraced the radical style and talking points of the paranoid, conspiracy theorist, anti-Obama fringe. The representation of the more libertarian conservatism would probably be met with "Oh yeah, I remember you. You're still around?" (Ron Paul) or "Who the hell are you?" (Bob Barr) by the average Fox News follower. The star power of the conservative movement seems to be drifting even further towards the fringe and taking the whole Republican Party with it.

Media Matter's full coverage of the CPAC event, with videos from about every important speaker:
http://mediamatters.org/search/tag/cpac_2010

The Insanity of Beck:

Beck calls President Warren Harding's death "divine providence"



Beck: "Rush [Limbaugh] is a hero of mine"




Keith Olbermann's coverage of CPAC:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

National Security Under the Obama Administration

President Obama's weekly address. In this address the President talks about the failed Christmas day terrorist attack and national security:



From the Washington Post:

"Critics have set up a straw Obama, a weak and naive leader who allegedly takes terrorism lightly, thinks that playing nicely with terrorists will make them stop, and fails to understand the threat that the United States faces from violent extremists. Mr. Cheney said that the incident had made "clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war." Likewise, Republican Study Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.) called on Mr. Obama to "recognize that we are at war with a murderous enemy who will not relent because we heed political correctness, acquiesce to international calls for deference or close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay." Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano "and the rest of the Obama administration view their role as law enforcement, first responders dealing with the aftermath of an attack. And we believe in a forward-looking approach to stopping these attacks before they happen."

There are two ways to show how baseless these attacks are: examining Mr. Obama's words and examining his actions.

Words first. "Evil does exist in the world," Mr. Obama said in accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. "Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms." In his weekly radio speech Saturday, he disposed of the war-vs.-law-enforcement canard, pointing out that in his inaugural address he made it clear that "0ur nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred and that we will do whatever it takes to defeat them and defend our country, even as we uphold the values that have always distinguished America among nations."

But actions speak louder, and Mr. Obama's actions -- often at the cost of enraging his party's liberal base -- have also demonstrated tenacity and pragmatism blended with a necessary reassessment of the flawed policies of his predecessors and a recommitment to the rule of law. He wants to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, which is all to the good given its stain on the national character, but he has delayed that goal until acceptable alternatives can be found. He has brought criminal charges against some terrorists, but he has also sent others to be tried by military tribunals. He has invoked the authority of the executive to have lawsuits dismissed because they risk exposing state secrets. In addition to the new troop deployments, he has aggressively used predator drones to strike at terrorists, including outside Afghanistan. Even before the failed attack, his administration has been working aggressively with Yemeni authorities to deal with extremists there."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/29/AR2009122903379.html?hpid=topnews


Republicans obviously don't agree.

Also from the Washington Post:

"Since before Obama was sworn into office, Republicans have been building a case that he is weak on national security, and in the wake of the intelligence and security failures that led to last week's incident, they think that narrative might stick. Congressional Republicans and GOP pollsters said they believe the administration's response to the failed attack on a Detroit-bound plane -- along with Obama's decisions on the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the intelligence lapses connected to November's massacre at Fort Hood, Tex. -- damage the Democratic brand.

The nation's economy and health-care reform are sure to be dominant themes. But if the public remains concerned about the safety of air travel and about international terrorism, the Republican attacks on Obama could be "very influential," said Andrew Kohut, a veteran pollster and president of the nonpartisan Pew Research Center.

"I don't know if it has legs, but it certainly has potential if it has legs," Kohut said.

As the GOP seeks a path out of the political abyss in the 2010 elections, its leaders seem to be turning to the issue of terrorism, which worked for them in the 2002 congressional midterms and in President George W. Bush's 2004 reelection.

"They just don't get it," Rep. Peter Hoekstra (Mich.), the ranking Republican on the House intelligence committee, wrote in a fundraising letter for his gubernatorial campaign. "These are the same weak-kneed liberals who have recently tried to bring Guantanamo Bay terrorists right here to Michigan!"

White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod responds:

"They can run on rhetoric," Axelrod said in an interview Tuesday. "We will run on our record when the time comes. . . . The president's record, I think, is very clear and very strong. This president has taken the fight to al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, in Somalia, in Yemen. He has focused on the threat in a way that it hasn't been.'"


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/29/AR2009122903379.html?hpid=topnews


President Barack Obama's top counter terrorism adviser, John Brennan, said Sunday that former Vice President Dick Cheney's criticism of the Obama administration's approach to the Christmas Day terror attempt is misinformed or intentionally false.




The White House also hit back on Cheney's remarks with an official statement:

"To put it simply: this President is not interested in bellicose rhetoric, he is focused on action. Seven years of bellicose rhetoric failed to reduce the threat from al Qaeda and succeeded in dividing this country. And it seems strangely off-key now, at a time when our country is under attack, for the architect of those policies to be attacking the President."


The non-partisan Politifact organization gave Cheney's remark their dubious "pants on fire" award.

(here)-
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/jan/03/cheney-claim-obama-earns-pants-fire/

Tea Parties, Dick Cheney, and the Public Option

Sorry it has been so long since the last update. I have been (and continue to be) sick.


Three major new blogs coming in the next week though. Stay tuned.

Until then, some thoughts on a host of issues-


Conservatives-Sorry, but it is not the 1700's anymore. We are not a thirteen state agricultural country. In a country as big as America, in this globalized world, we cannot afford to NOT have a strong federal government. (Full blog on this coming later).

**

Tea Parties=sensationalism. Why did the Tea Parties, and now the "Tea Parties 2", receive twice as much coverage as the gay rights march even though the movements had the same number of people? And, on top of that, the Tea Parties have been proven to be politically organized by former Republican legislators like Dick Armey.

**

In 2002 Dick Cheney said "The Taliban regime is out of commission [in Afghanistan], permanently." Obviously, this guy knows what he is talking about. /sarcasm. (This had to be right around the infamous "Mission Accomplished" scene...). Now, the Dick is chastising Obama for taking time to make a deliberate decision about sending more troops in to a war zone. Please, Mr. Penguin, shut the hell up.

**

60% of Americans want a public option. At least 53 Senators are behind it. The White House is behind it. Three different House Committees have passed bills with it. Fuck the obstructionist, this needs to get done. Do it, Harry Reid, do it.