CPAC 2010 Day 2 (UPDATED)

UPDATE 11:22p EST: You must watch these two videos of Andrew Breitbart. The man was one of my and Matt's favorite speakers last year at CPAC and he's had a great 2009, helping James O'Keefe & Hannah Giles to break the ACORN tapes. This video is classic Breitbart and exposes the liberal media.

UPDATE 6:29p EST: I'm just going to state right up front: I do not understand the appeal of Ron Paul. People chant "End the Fed" throughout his speech and... what do they propose to do once they accomplish this pipe dream? Ron Paul's speech? He revises the last 150 years of American history in favor of his brand of libertarianism/conservatism.

This isn't to say that there isn't some stuff to recommend Mr. Paul. For example: I stand with him in his defence of the Constitution. I just can't abide his more outlandish proposals, like ending the Fed.

The best speakers we listened to today were, in no particular order, Mike Pence, John Ashcroft, and Viet Dinh. Mike Pence delivered a speech that some people described as the best in CPAC history. I wouldn't go that far as there've been a lot of good speakers here over the year, but it was very good. Pence could very well run for and win the Presidency in 2012. I would not be shocked.

John Ashcroft (see my tweets) delivered a passionate defense of Bush-era legal handling of enemy combatants, etc. Given that Obama has mostly continued the Bush legal legacy, I'd say Ashcroft and co. have mostly been vindicated.

Viet Dinh was the man we did not know who delivered the goods. He was involved in a debate about relationship between liberty & security and he soundly (to my mind) whipped Bob Barr. Dinh's knowledge of relevant legislation and American legal history was on full display. I suggest you do a Google search and read what you can by Mr. Dinh.

The biggest disappointment, for me, was Tim Pawlenty. As the Old Man said, "the message was right, the delivery just left something to be desired." He did not have the charisma, presence, and speaking ability of Mitt Romney or Mike Pence. Granted, these largely superficial things are not everything, but it would be nice to have someone who can make a more compelling case for conservative principles. His speech was largely a rambling stream of consciousness that was at times too self congratulatory. This is the type of thing that bothers me from Obama. It bothers me no less when the person is a Republican. If a candidate is going to speak about his or her life, I want it to be in a self-deprecating manner. They should let someone else talk them up.

I begin today's CPAC blog post the same way I ended yesterday's, with a link to a Politico article about Mitt Romney.

Everyone who ever writes or talks about Romney's chances in 2012 always pounds on his Massachusetts healthcare plan and rightly so. It has elements of a government takeover of healthcare that conservatives to not like. Romney pitches it as an issue wherein states ought to be able to choose what they want to do, rather than the federal government. This is an interesting response, using the conservative argument for federalism to defend his unpopular-among-conservatives healthcare plan.

CPACers are a hard charging bunch. They conference hard during the day and party hard through the night and then somehow, many of them make it up the next morning in time for the 8:30a speaker.

Rather than going to one of the many CPAC-related soirees, we went to dinner at Pot Belly, a local's favorite sandwich establishment and followed that up with the Syracuse vs Georgetown men's college basketball game--a game won by Syracuse. We were collectively struck by how well Syracuse traveled for the game as they literally occupied the entire upper portion of the arena and the Orange was spread liberally throughout the rest of the Verizon Center. The only problem was, none of us AT&T users could get our cell phones to work. I don't know whether to blame Verizon or AT&T.

Like yesterday, the best CPAC coverage from us and everyone else is on that Twitter. Click here for me, here for Matt, and here for the #CPAC10 aggregator.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

CPAC Day 2

So I guess this is going to be more end-of-the-day review than RNC periodic update. Blame it on the fact that I have few NewsBusters duties and the limited internet access. You'd think they would have wireless access in every conference room so that anyone could sort of liveblog whatever was happening at the moment. To my mind, that would improve the connectedness between the conservative community at large and whatever is going on at CPAC.

I passed my opinion along to people who have marginally more clout than me. Which is to say that they have "no" clout rather than "negative" clout.

Let's see, what was interesting about today? We started off with a blogger meeting with Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell. Nothing earth shattering emerged from that meeting. The Leader, as he is known, pointed out the obvious--that it is hard to oppose the Democrats and maintain the filibuster with just 41 Senators.

We (Matt & I) attended a luncheon with Tony Blankley. I interviewed Tony at the RNC and he was as gracious today as he was then. He encouraged Republicans to quit being so earnest & make fun of the opposition. His point was that we sometimes get so caught up in the principle and winning the point, that we lose the debate and are unpersuasive. If we can poke fun at the other side--especially if it is genuinely humorous--then that can be an effective tool. I think he's right, I am sometimes guilty of being too earnest in my advocacy.

In the afternoon we listened to Ron Paul (why do so many people love this guy?) and Mitt Romney. Dear readers, the CPAC folks love Mitt Romney. We missed Newt because of the luncheon (free food), so I can't say without absolute authority, but Mitt received louder & more sustained applause & more standing ovations (several, throughout his speech) than any other person at the conference. And in line, while we waited to get into and out of the various convention rooms, everyone was talking about Romney.

Patrick, a friend of mine and a non-Mormon fan of Romney's believes that if the election were this year, Romney would, without a doubt, have been the Republican nominee and he probably would have beaten Obama. Given the current economic climate and Romney's perfectly suited skills, I find it hard to disagree.

I still have my doubts re: whether or not a Mormon can be elected President in this country, but if one is ever to be elected, Romney seems to me to have the best shot. He is a talent.

After Romney, I went to a reception with Ward Connerly (anti-Affirmative Action initiative guy) and Evil Genius Karl Rove. Connerly is one of that rare species of political being--the conservative African-American. Not only is he that, he is a leading opponent of Affirmative Action. Very impressive guy.

And of course I loved listening to Rove. He talked about his experience, sort of "growing up" in conservative politics and how much fun it had been. He gave lots of anecdotes and said that one of the best parts of the whole experience was the development of good relationships and friendships.

He said that he used to read the WaPo and NYT op-ed pages first thing every morning and then go in to talk about them with the President. He said he was the "hot head" of the White House and that the President used to get a kick out of how upset those editorials would make him. Everytime Rove would start to tell the President about how one of those papers got something wrong, Bush would say something to the effect of "in 50 years, the history books will get it right and we'll be vindicated and in 50 years we'll also be dead, so don't worry about it."

Yes, I asked Karl about the ongoing book challenge he had with the President and told him that we had taken it up. He said that they (he & the President) were giving it a rest this year because they were both busy writing their own books but that he was glad to see it was inspiring fellow challenges. My parting shot to him was that BYU would be Utah in the bball game Saturday. He just laughed.

More tomorrow.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

So you say you want a Ron Paul Revolution?

Yesterday as we drove through the greater Provo/Orem area here in Utah, we saw people in the process of putting up three garage-door size signs for Ron Paul. This added to an already large number of signs for the libertarian Presidential candidate.

Full of Mormons, Utah is generally considered to be a for-Mitt, by-Mitt, of-Mitt redstate. Not so. A quick google-search revealed a number of ardent Ron Paul revolutionaries (examples here and here). And a second look at the results from Iowa, New Hampshire, and Michigan, showed good results for Paul--when compared to the amount of attention he gets from the MSM.

We believe Ron Paul has a generally positive influence on the Republican Presidential Primary. To us, his foreign policy beliefs seem irresponsible. Additionally, many of his domestic and economic politics appear extreme. But his positions force every other candidate to reconsider the importance of the small-government, libertarian wing of the Republican party.

Winning 10, 8, and 4% of the vote in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Michigan, respectively, shows how much his beliefs resonate with Republican and in some cases, Independent voters. He may be used as a punching bag in debates, but however ridiculed, much of what he says finds enthusiastic believers. His one day record take of over $5 million USD shows his supporters are willing to back up their votes with cash.

None of this would be possible if Paul were to run as a 3rd party candidate. He might take votes from the eventual Republican candidate, aiding in a Democrat win, but more people would resent him for that (Ross Perot) than remember fondly how he reminded Republicans of conservative fiscal policy.

We wouldn't vote for Paul and we disagree with those who predict a break-up of the Reagan coalition (fiscal & social conservatives, foreign policy hawks). George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, and George W. Bush collectively were not carbon copies of Ronald Reagan politically. In each instance, different wings of the Republican party were more or less satisfied with each President's (or candidate's) positions on a host of issues. But each time, the majority of each part of the coalition voted for the Republican candidate because they best matched their beliefs.

Such will be the case in 2008. By and large, each of the major candidates more closely matches the beliefs of fiscal/social conservatism & foreign policy hawks better than any of the Democratic candidates. The only concern is that one or more of these groups stays home on election day--not that they vote for the Democratic candidate. But the same thing that happened before will happen again--the Republican nominee will do what is necessary to solidify the support of the Reagan coalition. In the meantime, the longer than normal competitive primaries will help Republican candidates and voters alike to sort out what matters most.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

If Jimmy Carter Were Running Today

He'd be a Republican and his name would be Mike Huckabee. Huckabee holds Democrat-like positions on foreign, domestic, and fiscal policy. It's one thing to nominate a principled conservative who ends up losing to a Democrat, it's something else altogether when the candidate wins simply because he's a (former) Baptist minister.

Mike Huckabee is a loser in the general election.

- Congrats to Ron Paul for winning 10%. We don't agree with many of Paul's positions, but his presence in the race forces the rest of the candidates to make sure they are true to conservatism's small-government roots.

- The big winner is John McCain, a candidate we admire, not Mike Huckabee. McCain was already trending well in New Hampshire polls, and Romney's performance in Iowa can only help him.

- The big, big story tonight is not the 3rd place finish by Shrillary, but the win by Barack Hussein Obama--the first black man to win a Presidential primary. We don't like his politics or even the candidate, but this is moment is good history. Congratulations, Senator Obama.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.