Sunny

So what are we supposed to be afraid of? The nice people Maddow refers to, the conference audience that booed an anti-gay speaker off the stage, the fact that the conservative gay advocacy group GOPROUD are sponsors of CPAC or are you just ignoring all that and focusing on the one idiot that Maddow refers to?

Perhaps you didn’t watch the Marco Rubio speech. Now there’s something you should be afraid of. An attractive, charismatic conservative with a compelling personal story, a successful political career to date and a well articulated small-government agenda. Yes I can see why you would be afraid of him becoming the face of the conservative movement.

Iain Dale says they are getting tolerant. Honestly, he does. It just goes to show the direction the Tory party are moving.

Ah, I see “Conservative Cabbie” is on rebuttal duty today. And misleading in characteristic style.

GOPROUD are in fact *co-sponsors* of CPAC 2010, along with 87 other organisations, including “Oath Keepers” (a group mentioned in the Maddow piece), Catholic Families for America, and the ever-present National Rifle Association. I’d check out more of them, but then I have a life, and things to do this afternoon.

Otherwise, CC is peddling the usual “non story” line. And no, I didn’t see Marco Rubio. If he’s any good we’ll all see and hear more of him. Big deal.

Richard – pound to a penny that Iain Dale saw the Maddow clip (it was signposted on the HuffPo yesterday evening) and wanted to get his retaliation in quickly. Otherwise I doubt he’d have mentioned it.

CC – who??

I’m just kidding with you. But you’re almso too predictable. The leader of the Republicans is going to be Sarah Palin and there’s nothing you guys can do to stop it. They’re crazy, they’re angry and they like the Hockey Mom ™. Nick Herbet’s please won’t do anything either.

The choice then is up to the Tories – do they ally themselves with such nutjobs or do they distance themselves.

Tim F

I’m well aware that GOPROUD are co-sponsors, nowhere did I say they were the sole sponsors (what was that you were saying about misleading?)

If I’m peddling the “non-story line” please feel free to point out the story that Sunny (or Maddow) were “peddling” short of substance-free boogeymen-isms (ugh).

And when does commenting on a post amount to mere “rebuttal”. Are you that scared of debate that the best you can do is resort to that silliness? Laughable!

I don’t read the Huffington Post. I was sent a link to the story by a friend in Washington.

Sunny

do they ally themselves with such nutjobs

Nutjobs like Mitch Daniels, Scott Brown, Bob McDonnell, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie…ok now I’m getting carpal tunnel syndrome…The truth is, both wings have their nutjobs.

But you’re almso too predictable.

Irony Sunny? Because I never expected this post from you And as for your Palin comment, you are aware that she refused to go to CPAC? It hardly represents a shared interest.

At the end of CPAC there will be a ballot on who should represent the GOP at the next election. How about a bet. If Palin wins that ballot, I’ll write something positive about liberals on my blog. If she doesn’t, you have to write something positive about conservatives* here. Two things I’m pretty confident about. One, I win that bet. And two, my ability to see both sides of an argument will make it much easier for me to see something positive about liberalism than it will be for you and conservatism.

* American conservatives mind.

I can’t see this video from my device but if it’s anything like the other crazy speeches I’ve seen from the conference, I imagine they are just blowing a gaskett cos they are now outnumbered by the youth libertarian wing: http://studentsforliberty.org/news/sfl-controversy-video/

this could be a clause 4 moment for US conservatives when they finally grow up and admit that bigotry isn’t enshrined in their constitution.

Ahh, Tradition Family and Property gets a mention. They had a weird cross-over with the New Right in the 1980s, on both sides of the Atlantic. See my blog entry here.

CC, you said “GOPROUD are sponsors of CPAC” which infers major or even sole sponsorship. In fact, their “co-sponsorship” extends to little more than being there.

To assert the former is misleading, and to know that the fact of the matter is the latter merely makes your position less tenable.

Sunny isn’t “peddling” anything: he is merely posting and giving a link for anyone to view.

My assertion that you were merely in rebuttal mode is straightforward: that is why you’re here. The idea that you would look in on LibCon other than to gainsay the known opinions of its regulars does not stand serious analysis.

Iain Dale – I’m surprised to see you looking in, given that you pulled LibCon from your links list after Sunny made a comment about Rush Limbaugh recently (an act which caused me to check out LibCon, although that was probably not your intention). Even more surprising is the admission that you don’t read HuffPo: for anything USA, this is a must, whatever your stripe.

Tim Fenton: “Ah, I see “Conservative Cabbie” is on rebuttal duty today.”

Spot on, their must be some kind of roster, or ares of specialism, CC always comes out when it is these far-right extremists that are the target of LC’s ire.

Tim F/ Daniel

Time for some rebutting.

Tim

The idea that you would look in on LibCon other than to gainsay the known opinions of its regulars does not stand serious analysis.

Actually I check in on LibCon every day without fail. Just as I do Andrew Sullivan, Daily Kos, Ezra Klein, HuffPo and other left leaning blogs. I like to get a balanced view on issues. The only reason I comment on posts relating to American politics is that it is that which interests me.

does not stand serious analysis.

Your leaping to judgement about me hardly constitutes “serious analysis”. Btw I apologise for “laughable” earlier.

Daniel

CC always comes out when it is these far-right extremists that are the target of LC’s ire.

No. I come out when Sunny or others post about American politics. See above.

I’m afraid that the two of you are blinkered by your prejudices, not a first for the left. If you don’t like my “rebuttals”, feel free to ignore me. Maybe someone else will offer some intelligent debate. But I’m happy to press the reset button and start again (to borrow from the Obama admin).

CC:

You’re ducking, you’re ignoring the dubious stances of the other co-sponsors, you are refusing to engage in debate about the very clear fact that Palin is front runner, which is in itself a problem as her views are pretty odd and in some cases, downright ludicrous.

You then, after doing a NOTHING TO SEE HERE deflection, resort to the BUT THEY ARE DOING IT TOO deflection, trying to make two wrongs appear a right.

You don’t actually debate here, you just snark and then bugger off, the last bit is fine by me but the former is tiresome.

Also, knee-jerk defence of the conservative movement in the US in not a good idea, it is in a pretty bad shape at the moment and in searching for an identity it is getting further to the right, no doubt this will hopefully so correct but look who you are keeping as allies and worry about the aspersions that casts on you and your personal politics.

Daniel

no i’m not ignoring anything. I find the views of the bloke who was booed off stage reprehensible. I think conservatives should stay well away from the consparicists within the movement, I’m strongly in favour of gay marriage and I don’t like some of the disturbing overtones to the anti-immigration argument. But I also believe that the GOP should be a big tent, that all opinions are valid even if I disagree with them and reforming a conservative movement will not come by alienating parts of it.

As for Palin being the front-runner. Do you have evidence to prove that or is mere assertion of the fact enough for you. The straw poll is tonight. I’ll say it now, I’m almost certain Palin won’t win it. In fact I won’t be surprised if she finishes third or fourth. you’ve not come up with any facts or made any argument beyond mere partisan assertion.

And conservatives in a bad state? You’re not much of a student of American politics are you? Amongst millenial voters (18-29) what was once a Democratic lead of 32 points over Republicans has slipped to only 14%. Obama only gets approval from white Americans of 37%, nearly twice as many Americans consider themselves conservative to liberal. On issues like abortion and gun control the trend is in favour of the conservative position, large majorities of Americans favour conservative positions on the role of government and on how to deal with terrorists. And to top it all, almost all polls now show Republicans leading democrats in the congressional ballot. There are still plenty of challenges for conservatives and the GOP, but if that’s a bad state, I’m looking forward to a resurgency.

And as for them moving further right, is that just another assertion or do you have evidence to back that up. Just two years ago their candidate was a moderate in McCain. The moxt likely candidate in 2012 will be Mitt Romney who won the last 3 CPAC straw polls and will probably win today (another moderate). They’ve won in Massachusetts, are competitive in Washington, California and New York, are pushing fiscal rather than social conservatism right now and are very possibly going to be winning both Barack Obama’s and Joe Biden’s senate seats. If that’s shifting right, then America is shifting right along with them.

Now that’s using facts to support an argument.

Sunny

The party of who?

Palin finishes third in the CPAC straw poll with only 7% of the vote. Romney finishes second with 3x the number of votes on 22%, Ron Paul and the libertarians finish top on 31%. Obviously not binding and Ron Paul can probably be discounted a little (his supporters are very good at organising for things like this), but excluding Ron Paul this means that Mitt Romney has won four times straight. I think it’s fair to say that the CPAC wing of the GOP is most definitely not Palin country.

Now be honest. Would you have taken the bet I proposed?

youth libertarian wing: http://studentsforliberty.org/news/sfl-controversy-video/
Thats sound sinister enough.
Pictures of Maggie, Nick (or NIck Cohen or is he the same person), black cabs for CC, Eton, BUPA posters, OXFAM poster with red crosses and t shirts with the comment “Lets kill poor people” and “Taxation is theft”
All youth groups (left or right ) should be banned.

Perhaps not banned.
Ignored

CC:

Yes you were ignoring but no point arguing it back and forth, you chose one element that better reflects the group, rather than the worst elements, makes sense but is rather blinkered, whole picture is better than some of it.

And you can read all you want into this but Palin is the front runner is all odds on who will get the GOP nomination, with Romney 2nd and Huckabee third, Ron Paul is there with McCain and Jeb Bush. Other odds have Palin second to Romney and Huckabee third again.

The fact that Palin is even in the running speaks volumes about the conservative movement in the US, the fact she was on the ticket in 08 says enough.

Normally overreach in the US is only done by the party in power but since Obama’s election victory and the Democratic dominance of both houses, the right in the US have tried to fight it’s way to the hinterland of socio-econmic ideologies; which many are more than willing to buy into (pity them) but US elections are not fought in the bases, they are fought with the swing voters.

So I too think conservatives should stay well away from the conspiracists but they currently make up a large part of conservatism at the moment.

“And conservatives in a bad state?”

Yes, they are and don’t be so quick to mock others knowledge when yours is less than perfect, esp. regarding your blinkered refusal to see Palin and all the horror she brings, as the GOP frontrunner at the moment. Oh and to be clear, McCain didn’t attend the event in 07 either, he only turned out in 08.

Your own stats show a Democrat lead that is still mighty enough, you mention white approval at 37% knowing full well that is only one segment of the electorate and that Obama’s figures are at a low at the moment, go back six months those figures wouldn’t look like that and the thing is those figures are no relation to what the GOP is doing, they are not making impact because they are too busy finding out who they are now and in doing so, scrabbling (at the moment) for some awful right-wing low ground that will alienate anyone not in their core base and thus, an election will be lost.

Obama’s ratings are the product of his own decisions, not what his opponents are up too, his decisions have been big ones, taking on vested interests who will hit him with everything they have, the GOP have merely been tail coat riders, not instigators, they have nothing to offer of their own, thus any Obama downturn and thus upturn is in is control; far better than being at the mercy of a good opponent, which the GOP, currently, are not. At all.

You also trot out what we all know, that Americans inhabit the conservative end of the spectrum, this is and was always the case; these are not new matters and were true when Obama won office and Clinton etc.

I’d hold off on polls if I were you, they can bite you in the ass pretty quick, I’d rather wait for elections to actually occur on a large scale for an assessment to be carried out.

The moving further to the right in the celebration of Glen Beck, of Rush Limburgh, of Sarah Palin; in the staggering search for a new, post-Bush icon. It is funny you mention McCain, who was moderate when he didn’t have to woo the GOP but soon shifted into some grotesque position in order to secure the base and in doing so lost the election.

I hope the GOP remains ensconced in the far-right, it can never win from there, so long may it remain there.

As for Mitt Romney, let’s see, he is a front runner, he will be better for the party but for the GOP to get behind him it is going to have to change, otherwise he’ll end up doing a McCain and the thing that got him the nomination will lose him the party and the voting base.

And to be clear, you’re a fan of the GOP, so you’re going to push the agenda hard here and make out all is well, as to be expected but never confuse your opinion and heart with the facts. There is a long way to go before the GOP regain the White House.

I’d also advise you not to be so condescending in your tone or blinkered in your outlook, it doesn’t bode well for decent debate.

Daniel

Interesting comment, some of which I agree with.

I’d also advise you not to be so condescending in your tone or blinkered in your outlook, it doesn’t bode well for decent debate.

Perhaps you’d consider not being so automatically dismissive just because I label myself as a conservative. I enjoy debating with those of an alternative view, what I don’t enjoy is being dismissed out of hand, hence my reaction.

You say Palin is the GOP front-runner and yet you supply no evidence of that. There have been a number of polls on this issue and it is difficult to say whether any of Palin/Huckabee/Romney are the front runners right now, they all poll well each winning different polls. Yes I like Palin, whilst recognising her flaws, she represents a blue-collar conservatism that I have always felt was the way forward for a conservative movement.

you chose one element that better reflects the group, rather than the worst elements, makes sense but is rather blinkered, whole picture is better than some of it.

If you’d read my blog (don’t worry I’m not suggesting you do), you’d realise that I do take a whole picture of the American right. There are problems which I frequently acknowledge but from my perspective there’s a lot of good too. There are three ways to comment on the American Right. Either ignore or excuse the flaws or alternatively do a David Frum and suggest that ditching the extremes within the party is the way to go. Personally I prefer a middle way, namely acknowledging the faults and seeking to change opinions whilst recognising that even those with flaws have something to offer.

You are right to say that the Democratic polling problems are of their own making rather than a successful GOP strategy. But that’s always the way in politics. People vote against rather than for a party. But a year ago, the GOP had been written off terminally. However, they have done some good things in that time. They have put forward very good candidates in the the big three elections, candidates who have articulated a conservative message without getting bogged down in social conservatism that perhaps turns voters off. To dismiss the successes of McDonnell, Scott Brown and Chris Christie as merely Democratic problems is being as wilfully blind to the reality as you accuse me of.

I’d hold off on polls if I were you, they can bite you in the ass pretty quick

True, and I don’t expect things to stay static. But they are the only snapshot we have that provides a rational understanding of the current state of play.

You mention white approval at 37% knowing full well that is only one segment of the electorate and that Obama’s figures are at a low at the moment

At a low or on a downward trajectory? Yes whites are only a segment of the electorate, but they are the biggest by far. Obama needs to be in the low forties with whites to have any chance of winning in 2012. Of course he can turn that around, but this is the group he is losing support with the fastest.

don’t be so quick to mock others knowledge when yours is less than perfect, esp. regarding your blinkered refusal to see Palin and all the horror she brings,

That’s not about knowledge but opinion. And I wasn’t mocking you, just pointing out that you were making statements that you hadn’t backed up with any facts.

Anyway, thankyou for your detailed response.

CC:

Before I get into this, I must say, there is an air of pointlessness about doing so, mainly because you clearly wear your beliefs in your name and I mine in my stance towards your beliefs. So we each have our own truths and then there is the truth.

Our comments to each other are quite frankly, piss in the wind, neither of us will be moved by the other, so I think what I am saying is that I’m just about done here before the discussion gets circular, repetitive and thus, will no doubt descend, eventually if it was perpetuated, into personal attacks.

Palin is the GOP front runner at the moment because all the sports betting has her as so, do you really need me to link to that? She is also the GOP front runner because of her reach, her popularity (again, I doubt you need me to link to her book stats) the fact she was the Veep pick last time and she is the figure in the GOP at the moments.

All of this may change but I speak as of the now.

As for her reflecting a blue collar conservatism, indeed but she does a disservice to the term, her overwhelming ignorance, folksiest stylings and fringe views (held by many but that doesn’t make them good per se) leave her un-electable to anyone outside of the base, thus if the GOP has any sense it’ll pick Romney, who will still lose if they don’t back him on what he is good at, moderation.

As I’ve said time and time again and I’ll stop soon, the reaction to Obama was to shift the party to the far-right when it was already quite right-wing as it was, this will please many and solidify a base but outside of that base it will be a struggle for the GOP to win. Palin to take MN with that? IA? CO? NM? FL? I doubt it, really I do.

As for the American right, of course there is some good, no one would refute that but my dislike of it at the moment is due to the hinterland it is occupying and the figures that are shaping it as the moment.

As a liberal, I am grateful of this though because it makes the chance of a GOP President all the slimmer, that may change but with the current set-up, long may it carry on.

I also do not agree that the incumbent makes all their own problems, obviously when you are actually in power that gives people more ammunition to attack you as you actually have to make decisions and not posture or float ridiculous concepts with no chance of them becoming a reality.

But the GOP are actually, considering the range of policy Obama is pushing, being a very poor opposition, not landing many blows and are lucky that Obama is attempting such far reaching policy (as he should, what is the point of battling to that position to play it safe, Bush jnr did no such thing). When policy making calms down, as it is wont to do as the term pushes nearer to two years in, the GOP will have to step up, maybe they will, we will just have to wait and see.

Anyone who wrote the GOP off terminally was a tit, in a two party set-up no one is out for any length of time, their is other option to turn to when voters are dis-satifisfied, so this phoenix from the ashes feels like a GOP invention to make poor policy and poor ideas seem like a renaissance.

I still think the small electoral gains of the GOP of late is down to the policy Obama is attempting to instigate and the bile filth and fury that it has caused the vested interests to vomit out. Once dust has settled the GOP will struggle still, until it can be taken seriously with decent policy and decent figures because that base that is such a strength can also be a terrible hindrance in the kind of message that can be put forward.

I never buy into polls as a rational understanding of anything, I prefer policy. This leads me to the tit-for-tat on Obama’s approval ratings, currently he stands at 47 for and 46 against, based on an aggregate of all the major polls, at the start of the year it was 50 for to 45 against, I’d prefer not to get into polls at all to be honest but compared with the previous incumbent and take in to account the sheer breadth of what Obama is trying to achieve, he is doing pretty bloody well indeed, not as bad as your personal politics would have it.

And if you haven’t noticed, CC, this is all about opinion, as I pointed out at the top.

A straw poll of US conservative activists saw Texas congressman Ron Paul emerge as the preferred Republican presidential candidate to run against President Barack Obama in 2012.

Some 31 percent of the more than 2,000 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) attendees who participated in the poll voted for the outspoken libertarian.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iORLNDp071DKVauNIsDo8ipzRryg

Anyone doubting the GOP’s lurch to the hard-right need only look at the shabby treatment of Dede Scozzafava, which gifted a rock-solid Republican seat to the Democrats. The big guns on the right of the party turn out to crush Scozzafava because she supports abortion and gay marriage, even though she is a good fiscal conservative, highly rated by the NRA, etc., etc. There is no room in the GOP for candidates who depart from a hardline socially conservative platform – and there won’t be again until after they lose in 2012.

Indeed G and it is this clamber to the right-wing low-ground that will keep the GOP as a noisy sideline act for years to come, I agree with you that a defeat in 2012 will be the only thing to tonk them to the middle-ground and political realism.

Here is hoping, a centre right GOP is of far better use to America.

G

What your analysis neglects to mention is that Scozzafava was also in favour of card check, a policy so far to the left of the Democratic Party, even Obama won’t go with it. It was that that rallied conservatives against her. The other thing you ignore is Scott Brown in Massachusetts. If Scozzafava’s liberalism is proof of the republican rush to the right, how come they so keenly supported Scott Brown? He’s pro-choice, pro-gay marriage (which by the way Obama isn’t and Dick Cheney is) and is by conservative standards fiscally liberal. And yet this headlong rush to the right is able to provide a large enough tent to support him, to support Mark Kirk in Illinois and Mike Castle in Delaware. There is plenty of room for candidates who stray from the socially conservative if that is what is needed to win. The Democrats are no different. If a district is socially conservative, they put up a more socially conservative candidate like Bark Stupak in Michigan.

The answer re: Scott Brown is the state in question.

Daniel

Exactly. They are willing (happy is too strong a word) to support liberal (er) Republicans in liberal states. That hardly fits with your thesis of a push to the right. It is not social conservatism driving the GOP right now but fiscal conservatism, trust me, I read a lot of conservative blogs and they hardly make a mention of social conservatism. Would the base support a Republican appointment of a pro-choice Supreme? Of course not, just as the liberal base wouldn’t support the appointment of a pro-life judge.

Push to the right is most definably happening across the GOP as a whole, one MA election win does not a party make and until the GOP seeks out the middle ground it will not win in 2012 because let us be clear, these discussion was around Presidential elections and not Congressional ones…before we move the goalposts too much.

And conservative blogs may indeed make very little mention of social conservatism, that doesn’t mean that the vast backbone of the party, thanks to Bush’s movement to the sharp right, is now made up of social conservatives, accurately represented in the down-home (vomit) charm of Ms. Palin, who is, for now, the bookies favourite for the GOP nomination.

Daniel

Push to the right is most definably happening across the GOP as a whole

Well that depends which right you are referring to. The fiscal right yes, but there is little evidence to suggest a push to the social right.

until the GOP seeks out the middle ground it will not win in 2012

When have they won a Presidential election from the middle in recent years? Ford, Dole, Bush Snr and McCain were all from the RINO wing and all lost a Presidential election. The middle for Republicans is a myth. It is not about policy but tone. Americans will accept conservative policy, but they won’t accept conservative policy couched in Limbaugh-esque language.

CC:

As I said, this is getting pretty futile and circular, we both have our truths, batting them back and forth is pointless.

Yes the GOP is going socially right, it was already pretty socially conservative and Bush helped establish and maintain a very, very socially conservative base that still makes up the bulk of the grass roots, for now and is reflected in the wide appeal of Palin, who represents those values beautifully.

As for winning from the middle, you mis-understand, it is all about getting the base to back it (after you’ve built or changed the base) and then the swing voters and independents, a growing group now in the US; so being an extreme party will get you Tennessee and Alabama but not get you Ohio, Penn etc.

Bush Jnr. aside, as I don’t want to get into that car crash, the last Republican in the WH was his pa, a middle of the road Conservative who did win an election but then came up against a fine, fine Democratic candidate, just as McCain did.

Astrology and terrible , terrible economic policies aside Reagan inhabited a middle place and had a far reach, based heavily on charisma but that charisma (of a different sort) is shared in Bill C and Obama.

I think that in your last phrase you hit on something for, because right now the GOP is using the language of Rush and with Glen Beck bringing up the rear with his offensive nonsense, they are shouting at the converted.

This is will not garner them the WH in 2012 so long may they keep doing it!

Daniel

We shall see. But it won’t be social conservatism that is the issue in 2012, it will be the economy and nothing but. If Obama doesn’t get employment under control by then, then you’ll be right that 2012 will be a foregone conclusion, just not in the way you want it.

And just to get a final partisan dig in. Obama may have been a fine candidte, but to date he’s been a lousy President.

CC:

Indeed we shall see, long time to go before 2012, who knows what will occur in that time and if social conservatism is not the issue in 2012 then all the better for the GOP and all the worse for a liberal like me, maybe the Palin ticket is wishful thinking because she’d lose and that is what I’d want. Maybe Romney alarms me (if he was properly backed by his party and didn’t have to do a McCain, in which case I’d also be happy cuz they’d lose again) or perhaps it’ll take another defeat to shake themselves up, like the Dems after the Kerry debacle.

And Obama a lousy President? Wow, how wrong can you be in so few words…

Daniel

And Obama a lousy President? Wow, how wrong can you be in so few words…

And that way leads to many more circular arguments. Another time maybe.

Indeed it does but you put it out there sir.

Well with the exception of national security, it’s what I believe with the caveat of “so far”. And he’s so 1970′s with his new policy of price controls on insurance companies. Man that’s a bad vibe dude.

Right, well a thread on Maddow at the wingnut madness is not the place for that truth I think.

Daniel

Well i’m now in a better mood. The Republican I want to run is definitely not Mitt Romney and reluctantly is not Sarah Palin. The one I want is Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana. Previously he has said he won’t run but is now conceding that he is open to the possibility. If you worry about Mitt Romney, then you should fear Mitch Daniels. Indiana is one of the few states to go from deficit to surplus under his watch, he’s a calm steadying influence which will be an antidote to Obama’s activist government, he’s very smart and is conservative yet pragmatic.

I tend to agree with you that Obama will win in 2012. I like Palin but recognise that opinion is against her whilst Romney and Huckabee are not to my liking. If Daniels is in, then I really do think it’s game on.

Thanks for sharing that.