Casual Observation

17 Comments

1. 

   MikeInOhio on March 16, 2013 at 6:14 pm

   The headlines on TPM kind of sum up the clusterfuck that is CPAC.

   CPAC Attendees: No Consensus on Why Romney Lost in November

   Palin Says Right Needs Fresh Rhetoric In Familiar Speech

   Try as they might, they are just incapable of any kind of self reflection.  They really do believe that it is not the message, but the messenger.  Seeing such a massive exhibition of denial and dissonance is really quite jarring.  After watching some interviews with the people there, some video snippets from the panels and seeing how they continue to frame this whole problem confirms the danger that this group is to the future of the country.  Anyone who is or wants to be a moderate Republican had better make up their mind to either mount a charge against these people, or find another team to become allied with.  Because these people will settle for nothing short of head on pikes displayed on the Washington Mall.

2. 

   TarheelDem on March 16, 2013 at 6:42 pm

   How far they’ve come from:

   John Chamberlain

   However, in the early 1940s, he became one the numerous writers and intellectuals of this period who moved to the intellectual Right, along with friends such as former communists Whittaker Chambers and John Dos Passos, although Chamberlain was never himself a communist.[5] Influenced by Albert J. Nock, he credits the writers Ayn Rand, Isabel Paterson and Rose Wilder Lane with his final “conversion” to what he called “an older American philosophy” of libertarian and conservative ideas.[6] Along with his friends Henry Hazlitt and Max Eastman, he helped to promote the work of the Austrian economist F. A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, writing the “Foreword” to the first American edition of the book in 1944.

   By the way:

   William F. Buckley, Jr., credited Chamberlain with “changing the course of his life” by writing the “Introduction” to Buckley’s first book, God and Man at Yale.

   James J. Kilpatrick

   Chappell (1998) shows that there were two factions of Southern segregationists that opposed federal enforcement of civil rights legislation between 1957 and 1962. The first used states’ rights and constitutional arguments to justify segregation on an intellectual level; Kilpatrick was an important leader of this faction. The second group used highly emotional language to justify segregation for reasons of racial purity, often inclining toward the anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic. Roy V. Harris, Georgia’s political “kingmaker,” was one of the leaders of this second group.

   Russell Kirk

   Kirk “laid out a post-World War II program for conservatives by warning them, ‘A handful of individuals, some of them quite unused to moral responsibilities on such a scale, made it their business to extirpate the populations of Nagasaki and Hiroshima; we must make it our business to curtail the possibility of such snap decisions.'”

   Norman Podhoretz

   Podhoretz served as Commentary magazine’s Editor-in-Chief from 1960 (when he replaced Elliot E. Cohen) until his retirement in 1995. Podhoretz remains Commentary’s Editor-at-Large. In 1963, he wrote the influential essay “My Negro Problem — And Ours

   ,” in which he described the oppression he felt from African-Americans as a child, and concluded by calling for a color-blind society, and advocated “the wholesale merging of the two races [as] the most desirable alternative for everyone concerned.”

   From 1981 to 1987, Podhoretz was an adviser to the U.S. Information Agency. From 1995 to 2003, he was a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by George W. Bush in 2004. The award recognized Podhoretz’s intellectual contributions as editor-in-chief of Commentary magazine and as a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.

   Podhoretz is married to author Midge Decter, and is the stepfather of Rachel Abrams (née Decter, Elliott Abrams’ wife) and father of syndicated columnist and current Commentary editor-in-chief John Podhoretz.

   And even;

   Jerry Falwell

   On his evangelist program The Old-Time Gospel Hour in the mid 1960s, Falwell regularly featured segregationist politicians like Lester Maddox and George Wallace.[12] About Martin Luther King he said: “I do question the sincerity and nonviolent intentions of some civil rights leaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Mr. James Farmer, and others, who are known to have left wing associations.”[13]

   In speaking of the Brown vs. Board of Education ruling, he said, in 1958:

       “If Chief Justice Warren and his associates had known God’s word and had desired to do the Lord’s will, I am quite confident that the 1954 decision would never had been made. The facilities should be separate. When God has drawn a line of distinction, we should not attempt to cross that line.”

   In 1977, Falwell supported Anita Bryant’s campaign, which was called by its proponents “Save Our Children”, to overturn an ordinance in Dade County, Florida prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and he supported a similar movement in California.

3. 

   TarheelDem on March 16, 2013 at 6:47 pm

   And then there’s today’s:

   Michael Mukasey

   “You may not be interested in Islamism, but Islamism is interested in you,” warned former Attorney General Michael Mukasey at a Saturday CPAC panel of activists so fringy that they were not technically invited to the conference.

   Da grift goes on…

   • 

     MomSense on March 17, 2013 at 9:11 am

     One of the kids I grew up with who is a big CPAC sort of Republican is convinced that austerity policies are not to blame for the economy in England–diversity is.

4. 

   rikyrah on March 16, 2013 at 7:41 pm

   It seems to me that CPAC does some cosmetic purging  every year, but they really can’t keep the racists out because the conference wouldn’t have many attendees if they were meticulous about purging racists.

   the truth is the light.

5. 

   centerfielddj on March 16, 2013 at 8:54 pm

   Don’t forget Phyllis Schlafly. It was kind of shocking to see her wobble out in her exteme dotage at CPAC today and croak out so many despicable views on so many subjects. The Eagle Forum is NOT down with the need for immigration reform, is what I’m saying.

   On the positive side, Phyllis does have a white-hot hatred for Karl Rove and is fine with shouting that hatred from the rooftops. So, stopped clocks.

   Then there were these wacky hijinx that happened at CPAC’s minority outreach seminar:

   “After the presenter, K. Carl Smith of Frederick Douglass Republicans, answered by referencing a letter by Frederick Douglass forgiving his former master, the audience member said “For what? For feeding him and housing him?” Several people in the audience cheered and applauded Terry’s outburst.

   After the exchange, Terry muttered under his breath, “why can’t we just have segregation?” noting the Constitution’s protections for freedom of association…

   ThinkProgress spoke with Terry, who sported a Rick Santorum sticker and attended CPAC with a friend who wore a Confederate Flag-emblazoned t-shirt, about his views after the panel. Terry maintained that white people have been “systematically disenfranchised” by federal legislation.

   When asked by ThinkProgress if he’d accept a society where African-Americans were permanently subservient to whites, he said “I’d be fine with that.” He also claimed that African-Americans “should be allowed to vote in Africa,” and that “all the Tea Parties” were concerned with the same racial problems that he was.

   At one point, a woman challenged him on the Republican Party’s roots, to which Terry responded, “I didn’t know the legacy of the Republican Party included women correcting men in public.””

   What a swell, swell guy. Way to grow the base, CPAC!

   • 

     Marie2 on March 16, 2013 at 10:05 pm

     At fifteen or sixteen I read Schafly’s “A Choice Not An Echo.”  It turned me into a raging liberal and have never seen any reason since then to turn right and join the hypocrites.  Reading and thinking is undoubtedly rare among the CPAC folks.

   • 

     MikeInOhio on March 16, 2013 at 10:25 pm

     Well you know, in the minds of the attendees there’s a very simple explanation for this incident……….The guy was a plant by the liberals to make it look like CPAC is full of bigots.

     It doesn’t appear, though, that we liberals need to set aside any of our own personal time to try and help these people look like racists.  They’re doing just a fine job without us.  

     But hey, it’s not the message, right???  It’s just the messengers.

     • 

       seabe on March 16, 2013 at 10:26 pm

       That’s always the refrain: PLANT!

       but if you go on his blog, it’s clear he believes and promotes the shit he espoused.

       • 

         MikeInOhio on March 16, 2013 at 10:47 pm

         One would have to believe all that crazy shit in order to be able to tolerate being immersed in it for several days.  Normal humans with working and thinking brains would have gouged their eyeballs out after their first day there.

       • 

         centerfielddj on March 16, 2013 at 11:16 pm

         Remarkably, they’re currently pursuing the exact opposite of claiming “LEFTIST PLANT!”.

         Here’s the African-American who ran this CPAC minority outreach meeting:

         K. Carl Smith, the panelist from Fredrick Douglass Republicans, released a statement following the media storm related to the racist outburst in his panel. Astonishingly, he reserves the brunt of his criticism for the female reporter who raised objections to the comments being made in the room:

         “I was invited by the Tea Party Patriots to conduct a breakout session entitled: “Trump The Race Card” and share the Frederick Douglass Republican Message. In the middle of my delivery, while discussing the 1848 “Women’s Rights Convention,” I was rudely interrupted by a woman working for the Voice of Russia. She abruptly asked me: “How many black women were there?” This question was intentionally disruptive and coercive with no way of creating a positive dialogue.

         In addition, a young man who wasn’t a Tea Party Patriot (Mr. Terry), made some racially insensitive comments, he said: “Blacks should be happy that the slave master gave them shelter, clothing, and food.” At the conclusion of the breakout session, I further explained to him the Frederick Douglass Republican Message which he embraced, bought a book, and we left as friends.”

         Now, that is the very definition of an “Uncle Tom” statement. Or, modernizing the reference, Uncle Ruckus:

         https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqV2n5h7RWs&NR=1&feature=endscreen

         • 

           MikeInOhio on March 16, 2013 at 11:49 pm

           Well!!!….if he bought a book!!!….then I guess that makes everything that happened all okey-dokey in their view. No harm, no foul.

         • 

           seabe on March 16, 2013 at 11:56 pm

           And there’s the rub. Lots of money to be made. It’s a male Star Parker!

6. 

   Marie2 on March 17, 2013 at 2:15 am

   Check out Hunter’s picture of Brent Bozell wearing the most bizarrely ill-fitting suit of all time.  There’s at least ten major things wrong with it.  

7. 

   Marie2 on March 17, 2013 at 2:47 am

   Rand Paul won the CPAC straw poll.

   Back in 2009, Romney won it.  So, guess we shouldn’t dismiss Rand.  If the big money boys don’t revolt, he could be their strongest candidate.

   • 

     seabe on March 17, 2013 at 7:17 am

     And in 2010 and 2011, Ron Paul crushed Mitt Romney:

     http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/20/cpac-2010-straw-poll-resu_n_470319.html

     http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/12/cpac-straw-poll-2011-ron-paul_n_822412.html#s237999&tit
     le=Rep_Michele_Bachmann

     Considering my demographic was over-sampled, and the fact that he barely bear Rubio…I’d say he has zero chance (from the outset).

     • 

       Marie2 on March 17, 2013 at 1:10 pm

       Wasn’t considering the plausibility of nominating Rand as much as I played with the idea.  Ignoring his lack of charisma, the idea has more to recommend it than I’d previously considered.