Posted on 02/05/2011 2:49:58 PM PST by pissant
Next Thursday marks the start of the Conservative Political Action Conference, commonly known as CPAC, where conservative activists gather every year in Northwest Washington, D.C.
It's a chance for bigwigs to make speeches to a ballroom full of influential types, which makes it a particularly choice venue for Republican presidential aspirants, which speak there regularly. It's a packed three-day schedule from Thursday through Saturday, so there's room enough for most of them.
Tea party hero Michele Bachmann, whose office indicated in January that she's considering a 2012 run, will be the first of the 2012ers to speak. Bachmann, many will recall, just delivered a televised response to President Obama's State of the Union address, orchestrated by the group Tea Party Express.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
|
|
The American Conservative Union Citizen Link (formerly Focus on the Family Action) Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation
Special Thanks to the Following Organizations: Citizens United, sponsor of the CPAC Theater FreedomWorks, sponsor of the Blogger’s Lounge HSP Direct and SarahPAC, sponsors of the Presidential Diamond Reception National Rifle Association, sponsor of the Presidential VIP/Participating Organization Reception Newsmax, sponsor of the Ronald Reagan VIP/Participating Organization Reception TheTeaParty.net, sponsor of the Media Lounge TMA Direct, sponsor of CPAC Live
|
ANd Palin’s stated reason for not going has nothing to do with GOP Proud. The Palinistas live in a land of make believe and get to write their own narratives.
I hope she cancels.
This is not wise on her part.
You bet, Ed Morrissey is the definitive word. Gimme a break.
I don't like the militant homo agenda or CAIR whose ideas, according to Diogenes, are influencing what is supposed to be a conservative group.
**********************************
Wrong from the very beginning.
I don’t put much credence into any statement behind why any person does or doesn’t attend functions of this type. I do believe that most likely the date of the next annual convention is known well in advance maybe even announced at the current years convention. Thus anyone really wanting to plan a schedule could hold a day open if they chose.
Excuses at just that, excuses. It’s a common practice it seems.
******************************************
Exactly. This should be interesting.
**********************
Good question.
He quoted Palin’s email which she sent out to the media to explain why she was not attending. Did she send you her secret one explaining the “real” reasons?
Ed got Ann Coulter thrown out of CPAC. Heritage and MRC bailed thats enough for me.
It may have a history, but like most history, that’s in the past.
The people complaining about CPAC are the supporters of candidates who didn’t do the work to do well in the vote, but might otherwise be expected to do well.
They’re anticipating a poor showing at CPAC, knew they didn’t do the work, and are boycotting in order to provide an excuse for their poor showing.
Bachmann would not be expected to do well. Palin would. Palin typically hasn’t performed well at these things. So, Palin will say “I boycotted” if she gets under 10%. Or her supporters would say that.
Bachmann, by showing up and speaking, will likely increase her numbers at the poll.
What are the CPAC rules about who can be a sponsor, anyway?
Most of the problem is this GOProud group I think? What are their rules about letting organizations sponsor? Do they take anybody? If Move On wanted to be a sponsor, would CPAC let them? Acorn? Soros / Rothschild front groups?
If CPAC does have a fully open sponsorship procedure, then there’s really nothing wrong here, but I suppose that is not the case.
I would like to hear from organizations who tried to be sponsors, but were turned down by CPAC. It would be even easier to point fingers at CPAC. “What? CPAC doesn’t think X is Conservative, but Gay is?”
Ask Charlie Baker and Richard Tisei about how well it works out when the GOP reaches out to the gay community....
Michelle should snub FudgePAC. Doing so would have a much bigger impact than her speaking there.
No, I’m just not that naive.
Sarah Palin recently declined an opportunity to speak at CPAC for the fourth year in a row. Obviously, that doesn't count for those unalterably opposed to the former Alaska governor and gleefully seeking reasons to pronounce her as anathema for conservatives, no matter what she says or does. SarahPac is sponsoring a reception at CPAC. I suspect it's Palin's way of making a gesture to the group, which, despite it's recent inclusion of GOProud, still commands some influential guests and large audiences. I'm not crazed aboutGOProud being affiliated with CPAC.
I'm one of those who view GOProud as a Trojan Horse inside the conservative gates...incongruous and illogical. Even so, I understand a conservative politician such as Michele Bachmann wanting to speak to such a large gathering of conservatives so, as I stated, I'll wait to learn what she says to the convention before making any judgments. Even then, I'm not obdurate to the point of abandoning any and all support for Representative Bachmann based on her one appearance at a huge convention of political conservatives, some quite influential, because the group organizing the conclave allows a 'gay' group that claim to be conservative to be a co-sponsor.
That would be short-sighted and, frankly, if we follow that line of reasoning we could have disavowed Ronald Reagan because he signed the 1986 immigration amnesty bill into law and did so quite enthusiastically, as I recall. Of course conservatives were upset with Reagan for signing the bill but they did not abruptly yank their support for him in the '84 election based on this single act. In fact, unsurprisingly, I read only sparse mentions of this incident during the Reagan 100th birthday celebrations. I can see why. It was a (well-intentioned) mistake but it doesn't cancel out Reagan's achievements and his standing as, not only a great president, but a great conservative.
No, I don't equate Sarah Palin (or Michele Bachmann) to Ronald Reagan but I believe that either woman can make an error in judgment without being reflexively labeled as a persona non grata to conservatives. Then again, I try to take a reasoned view of any possible candidate for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination and although a lot of names are floated, only a very few are of real interest to conservatives and I refuse to reject any of those on specious grounds. The next election is too important to decide the GOP candidate based on petty arguments over trivialities, overblown gossip and alleged missteps that foolishly trigger unwarranted and instant rejection. That way lies failure and loss.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.