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/

The Way Forward in Afghanistan

Sorry, my (most) liberal friends: I support the President's decision to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. Yes, I am aware that we have been there for over eight years. Yes, it is true that al-Qaeda is mainly based in Pakistan. Yes, it is also true that Afghanistan has never been (and can never be) a fully functioning democratic nation state. And yes, our "partners", the Afghanistan government run by Karzai, could not possibly be any more corrupt or worthless.

But no, none of that is reason enough to risk a premature withdraw from the region, if for nothing else but for security's sake. I don't care what Michael Moore says. Afghanistan started as a war of necessity, after the attacks on 9/11 by al-Qadea who were based in Afghanistan at the time. It is true that they might be primarily based in Pakistan now, but they continue to launch attacks and have influence in Afghanistan. If we left now, you can bet they would regain control of the already destabilized region before anybody even knew better.

What I think is interesting is the political fall out of the President's approach. For once, in the first time since the Inauguration, the Republicans are actually vocally standing behind the President and supporting him. (Except for the vampire Dick Cheney who apparently operates on an island of his own).

In contrast, it is now the Democrats losing their heads and grumbling about the next election cycle. That is even after Obama threw the left a bone by announcing a withdraw plan for Afghanistan beginning in 2011 (so for accuracy sake, the plan is a temporary surge followed by a timed withdraw). All I have to say to these Dems, is if the President has a plan to start getting us out of the region in 2011 (which will be about the 10 year mark in the war), why not just let him and the generals have the troops they think they need to do it? Honestly, don't pretend like you know more about strategic military decisions than the people at the top of the chain of command. Remember when Cheney accused Obama of "dithering?" The President spent weeks, almost months, on this decision. It was not made lightly. There were debates and deliberations between some of the sharpest minds of these subjects the entire time. There is something in this plan for both sides. A troop increase for Republicans and a timed withdraw for Democrats. So far there has been a lot bigger of a fuss on the left.

It just goes back to the saying that in politics, when you drive down the middle of the road you get hit by traffic on both sides.

In short, I support the troop increase because I think our attention and focus has been negligent in Afghanistan since pretty much the start of the Iraq war and needs to be made up for. I support the timed withdraw, because we should not be occupying Afghanistan, or trying to turn it in to something it can never be (a fully functioning democratic nation state). And hopefully, as the idea goes, the time line will make not only our only military actions more efficient, but make our partners in the Afghanistan government wake up and actually do something.

So for this blogger, another home run for President Obama.




*EDIT* Next day update: Republicans are suddenly turning against the President's plan in waves. Big surprise.

The American Conundrum

Bob Englehart. more here : http://blogs.courant.com/bob_englehart/

Nov. 3rd Elections

If you've missed it, the big story in politics right now is the Republicans sweeping hotly contested elections for governor in New Jersey and Virginia. Republicans are, of course, claiming this is a referendum on the entire Obama agenda.


The Huffington Post-

"Conservative Republican Bob McDonnell's victory in the Virginia governor's race over Democrat R. Creigh Deeds and moderate Republican Chris Christie's ouster of unpopular New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine was a double-barreled triumph for a party looking to rebuild after being booted from power in national elections in 2006 and 2008."


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/03/virginia-governors-race-2_n_344576.html

The Republicans won some governor positions. Congratulations. But as to this being a referendum on President Obama?


CBS News-

A majority of voters in both states said they are worried about the direction of the nation’s economy over the next year. 85 percent of Virginia voters said they are worried, as are 90 percent of voters in New Jersey. These percentages were similar on Election Day in 2008.

In both states the economy topped the list of issues that mattered most to voters in their choice for governor – in Virginia health care was second, while in New Jersey the second choice was property taxes.


Still, majorities of voters in both states (55 percent in Virginia and 60 percent in New Jersey) said President Obama was not a factor in their vote today. Those who said Mr. Obama was a factor in New Jersey divided as to whether their vote was a vote for the president (19 percent) or against him (20 percent). In Virginia, slightly fewer voters said their vote was for Mr. Obama (18 percent) than against him (24 percent).


http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/03/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5514455.shtml


Also, in other news, the so called Conservative candidate in the New York congressional race that forced the RNC endorsed Republican candidate out of the race lost to Democrat Bill Owens. The story was significant because after the Republican party officially endorsed the Republican candidate Dierdre Scozzafava, Sarah Palin went rogue and endorsed the Conservative candidate Doug Hoffman (the Conservative candidate was essentially a representative of the tea party factions, as it has been explained). After all the drama, the Democrat won anyway.


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/03/bill-owens-leads-doug-hof_n_344776.html

Jesus is a Liberal

In the 21st century, many see the Republican Party as the political arm of Christian faith. I find this odd, because I think the Democrats, the party which has historically been more involved in social justice and helping the least among us, are more in line with the teachings of the Bible. Many times in the Bible it says to “love thy neighbor”; a code Republicans tend to forget about if their neighbor is black, poor, or gay.

There is also a passage in the Bible that states “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven”. This philosophy seems to conflict with the Republican message of “Get a lot of money, to hell with everyone else”, or in the case of the majority of already rich Republicans, just “to hell with everyone else”.

Somehow I don’t think Jesus would find “They didn’t work hard enough” or “It’s mine!” a rightful response to people who are poor, sick, or in need. Jesus wouldn’t rationalize living in extreme posh and luxury while others are starving and homeless by saying “I deserve it better”. Jesus wouldn’t let millions get sick, go broke, and die because they have a “pre-existing condition” and can’t pay out of pocket for treatment.

So why is the Republican Party synonymous with Christian morals and belief? A lot of it stems from the issue of abortion. Most Christians are pro-life and for many this single issue dominates their political perception and persuasion. Gay marriage has also been a divisive issue as of late but mainly it comes from Republicans being better at playing the “I’m just like you!” political game. (This was Sarah Palin’s entire resume).

None of this explains how Jesus became Captain Capitalist to rural Republican voters. Many, for some inexplicable reason, think that the Bible advocates free market principles. It doesn’t; and for the record, neither does the constitution. The wide spread belief of both of these myths is actually just a testament to the political powers of Republicans like Karl Rove, a prominent force in the politicization of religion and using it in elections.

The GOP is at its core a political party, not a governing or legislative one. Typically, Republicans fair much better in sound clip wars and television ads than they do in substantive policy debates. The manner and effect in which they have framed the ideological debate, and more so how many people they have got to believe their story, is impressive in political terms. For many in the South and Mid-West, the Republican Party, free market ideals, and Christianity are one in the same while the inner city Democrats are a bunch of elite, godless, out of touch, communist monsters here to destroy America. There irony is that if Jesus was here today and he had a choice between helping the poor, impoverished and sick or supporting big business and their endless quest for higher profit, I know whose side he would be on.

Rush Limbaugh Is Not A Racist!!!

Rush says the fevered, uncompromising opposition he has to President Obama isn't based on race.

Here is Mr. Limbaugh's feelings on slavery:


"I mean, let's face it, we didn't have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: Slavery built the South. I'm not saying we should bring it back. I'm just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark."

and this is another pearl of wisdom on race from Rush:

" You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray [the assassin of Martin Luther King]."

http://shar.es/1l9Pe

The fact that this man dominates radio is, to say the least, disturbing. He is an unhinged, racist pig and the only thing as disgusting as his existence is that there are those out there who connect with his fascist, hate laced dribble.

Who Needs the Earth When You Got $?

The argument against cap and trade legislation is that companies have the right to rape the world we are going to inherit for their profits.

GOP vs America

The three most vocal opponents of President Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize were al-Qaeda, Iran, and Rush Limbaugh. What a winning team. Pretty telling Rush can agree with Osama Bin Laden before the President of the United States.


Rush says this is just evidence of a vast global left-wing conspiracy.

Yeah, having a dramatic positive impact on our international image, setting the withdraw from Iraq, working through combustible situations with Iran and North Korea without military incident, cooling our relations with Russia, working towards nuclear disarmament and peace in the Palestine area and building international support in diplomatic movements on Iran really isn't worth all that much I guess...

Not to mention being the first black President and inspiring people of every country, race, and creed around the globe.

Forget all that. Must of been his backroom leftist buddies!

The Politics of Spite - NYTimes.com

"If Republicans think something might be good for the president, they’re against it — whether or not it’s good for America."

Op-Ed Columnist - The Politics of Spite - NYTimes.com

Rep Grayson Stays at the Plate

"America is sick of you, Republican party, you are a lie factory, that is all you ever do."




Thanks to Brilliant at Breakfast for the video.

Not All Shit Sticks to Walls

A town hall in Kansas laughs off a Republican representative's lie.




From The Huffington Post.