From what I gather this year’s CPAC was nothing but a platform to do everything possible to slam George W. Bush.
“…Former President George W. Bush also had little support. Several speakers, including former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., linked him to Obama, Politico reported.
Romney criticized Bush for failing to develop his own stimulus plan last summer. Criticizing Bush’s response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005, another former presidential hopeful, Mike Huckabee, told the attendees, “You know what kind of conservatives we need most? Competent conservatives,” a play on Bush’s call in 2000 for compassionate conservatism….”
After we’ve put up with an entire day of the Rush Limbaugh – Michael Steele pissing contest, I’ve basically had it with “true conservatives”. They are the reason we have Barack Obama in the White House. Conservatives helped to elect him. Deal with that and deal with the fact that a goodly protion of the people attending CPAC this year were THIRD PARTY LOSERS.
Monday evening, on O’Reilly, Barnard Goldberg proved why I do not like ideological conservatives. They are true believers – fanatics, who care only for their opinion, hearing their own voices and require followers march lock-step with them.
Now you know why the GOP is losing elections. Jay Cost has an excellent RCP column on the subject:
“…Are we talking about politics or religion? It sounds an awful lot like religion – and I think we need to reframe the discussion.
Political participation is a mass phenomenon in this country. Aside from going to church and watching the Super Bowl, it might just be the only other activity that commands so many participants. After all, at least 131,370,793 Americans voted in the last presidential election. In comparison to that, just about everything else is niche entertainment.
Obviously, Salam is correct that Limbaugh’s audience would be insufficient for a political majority, but a political majority in 2008 required the support of nearly 66 million voters. Ultimately, that undermines his broader point – for we are dealing with a scale so massive that we have little use for “evangelizers.”
There are reasons political campaigns have taken the peculiar shape they have taken – that they do not conform to the ideal of “deliberative democracy.” We can appreciate just how entrenched our less-than-erudite tradition of politicking is by reviewing one of the first elections that generated high levels of participation, the election of 1840 in which William Henry Harrison squared off against Martin van Buren…Think of it this way. Suppose the Republican Party and the conservative movement fail to “reform” or “reimagine” themselves, but the country becomes highly dissatisfied with the governance of President Obama. What happens in 2010? I’ll bet the farm that the GOP makes big gains in the House, ideological anemia aside. Now, suppose that the party and the movement do reinvigorate themselves, translate their principles into compelling policy solutions and generally begin an intellectual renaissance on the right – but the country is pleased with Obama and the Democrats. What happens? Again, I’ll bet the farm that the Republicans make little or no gains.”