Mostly Religion Free CPAC Dominates The Weekend, and more…
The Conservative Political Action Committee held it’s convention this weekend past and it tends to be viewed as the kick-off for Republican POTUS races. This year, I think the Telegraph gets it right – CPAC is auditions, not kick-offs. The field has yet to settle out enough for CPAC to have major impact on the race itself. Next year’s CPAC will be the really interesting one. This year’s Straw poll, won by Ron Paul (gee, there’s a shocker) just shows that things have yet to settle out and people are not yet getting really serious.
CPAC is largely a religion free zone. This year saw some controversy as the convention included a gay Republican group which caused many of the religion firsters to boycott, but most people are noting that the convention is little affected. For the best free coverage, check Hot Air and if you are a subscriber, check PJTV. There were lots of great speeches by the possibles and we do not need to retread here what was covered well enough by others.
There are a few things to note. One, Donald Trump’s appearance was, I still believe, a publicity stunt. He has a TV show that is getting old and needs its ratings revved up a bit. Mitch Daniels’ speech was strong enough that he may have revived his opportunity. However, when he has to protest to Politico that he really is in a strong position to run, I’m thinking he has himself in a far less goofy Ron Paul like position (Policy wonk – maybe some good ideas) than serious candidate position. John Thune did ok, but is running out of space. Ann Coulter made a fool of herself – actually, that is not really news.
At this moment, there are only two truly serious players. Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty, and they are squaring off. But before we go there, much still reverberates from Jon Huntsman’s resignation as Obama’s, I repeat Obama’s, ambassador to China.
And Still “The Question” Rings…
Largely because “On Faith” insisted that it would when it asked about it earlier last week. Some of the responses were just silly and naive. Some clearly were not listening until now. Some found the sweet spot. One of the more interesting story lines to develop out of the discussion was the Jewish claims of having been through this already. That’s bothersome. The minute we start worrying about who has been most victimized is the minute we have lost what we are really fighting for.
The most interesting question, really, is if Huntsman is not trying to play the spoiler for Romney. His actions certainly have reignited this discussion, but he’ll have to do a lot more if he truly wants to spoil. This discussion will die soon – likely is already dead.
Some liberals took a lousy shot at Dallin Oaks speech last week. It is too ineffective to deserve comment, let alone refutation.
Playing The Field…
A look at Iowa. It’s a story about Iowa action groups, which are called “tribes” in the local parlance. That’s problematic. “Tribes” draw boundaries that tend to fight against negotiation or moderation. When seeking to build a consensus, the last thing you need is to go “tribal.” Advocate, promote, champion your cause, but in the end we have to come together or all we have done is not only have our cause defeated, but our opportunity to bring our cause forward. Just another reason to remove Iowa from it’s current prominence.
I think Allahpundit has analyzed the battle lines, if not the players, just about right for the forthcoming primary:
Half the field will compete for the principled “true conservative” nomination (Palin, Huck, Santorum), the other half will compete for the moderate/managerial nomination (Mitt, Daniels, Huntsman), and then there’ll be a showdown.
It will be argued that “moderate/managerial” is what we had last time, and look where it got us; however, John McCain will no be the candidate this time and we have had four years of management by true believers even if on the other side of the aisle. We may need true conservative policies to counter-balance this administration, but there are two really important factors to keep in mind. More than policy objections to this administration are the cram-down objections. Most pep0le care less about policy than they do that stuff was force-fed them against their will, and that is what true-believers, on either side of the aisle, tend to give you.
Which gets me to my second point – general elections are decided, always, by the great unwashed moderate independents. It is a statistical reality we simply cannot ignore. A “true conservative” Republican candidate will yield the middle to Obama, where those people live, and we lose. I know the nation is in an angry conservative mood right now, but if it does not settle down things will get worse, not better.
Give me a break with this. Hit piece for sure – look who the author is, but it is not even a good one. If you are going to try and establish a narrative for the other guy, you need to come up with one that is plausible. And speaking of needing a break.
As we said earlier, the serious stuff is between Romney and Pawlenty, although Palin has made her first serious move towards candidacy – that would change the dynamic radically and quickly. Remember a few weeks ago when we suggested that perhaps Michelle Bachmann was letting rumors fly to aid some other presidential possible, by stealing Pawlenty’s Minnesota thunder? We are not the only ones that had that idea.
Romney has the best wife power. No kidding there. Ann Romney is a dynamo, and a charmer. People are reaching for straws to attack him now – this time they are trying to reinvigorate “flip-flop” over the paperback release of his book. Come on – Obama has shown a lot more leg since the hardback edition – hence Romney’s change in tone. Conditions change and smart people change with them. But what is really irritating is that we all know – it’s been proven – that flip-flop is often code for Mormon.
I’m glad some of this is playing out now and not later, when things get really serious. Obama is weak, but not dead, and if we cannot keep our act together we’ll suffer four more years of this nonsense – something the nation simply cannot afford.
Posted in Reading List | 5 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
JLF9999 on 14 Feb 2011 at 7:59 am #
Which spirit are you listening to? That question has been asked of Mormons, and I have to think others as well, since the beginning. The point is, Christ said His sheep know his voice. If His sheep know His voice then they will be following His admonishments to live a true Christian lifestyle according to true Christian principles. His “voice” is the whisperings of the Holy Ghost. If we are one of Christ’s sheep, something will have happened inside us. We will be different than before. We will no longer be neutral on the things of religion and God and will have a new outlook on life and other people. We will be living what Christ taught to the best of our understanding. We will see Christ as our exemplar, our model. So when someone asks us which spirit we are listening to, someone has reason to believe we may have slackened in our pursuit of living Christ-like principles in favor of worldliness and the “spirit” that accompanies that lifestyle. We are told that God can not live in an unclean vessel and so it is. People who seek worldliness over Christ will manifest their choice in their speech and actions and we will be able to tell the difference We cannot serve two masters.
So, what has this to do with politics? I suggest the Mormon debate can be seen as which master is being served. It could just as well be the Jewish debate or the Catholic debate. If God influenced the writing of the Constitution and founding of this country then He is still interested and involved in our nation. If He is active in the lives of our leaders and those who seek to be our leaders, then they will be listening to His voice. If we see behavior that is not Christ-like then we should ask which spirit is being listened to and whether that person is fit to lead us. I suggest God put article six in the Constitution for a reason. He understands that people learn at different rates and times and that learning about and understanding religion is primarily an intellectual pursuit often dependent on circumstance and opportunity and can’t be used as a measure of worthiness. But, having Christ in one’s life crosses all religious boundaries and is dependent solely on the human heart and intent.
TVHall on 14 Feb 2011 at 12:25 pm #
It’s pretty clear from the two previous occurrences of this event that the name needs to be changed to LPAC, since their make up is much more libertarian than conservative.
JLF9999 on 16 Feb 2011 at 11:24 pm #
After reading what many people have to say about Mitt I have concluded it must be easy to tell when Mitt is talking about some he believes in. But when he is on “auto” he sounds plastic. One commenter said Mitt had the crowd eating out of his hands at a recent event when the subject was something he felt strongly about. But when it came to the other stuff, not so much. Several people have said that makes him plastic. Maybe so on some subjects. But maybe that is just his honesty showing through. Some folks are just not very good liars. It is kind of refreshing if you ask me.
JLF9999 on 21 Feb 2011 at 12:47 pm #
John took some exception to my comment above. What I understood him to say in his email to me is that I meant to say Mitt is a liar. I do not believe that and hope my comments above do not come across that way. However, some folks can BS the people on any subject and get them to believe it is the most important they think about. We all know it is BS when we think about it. But it serves the politician well anyway. My comment was based on the observations of several people who have heard Mitt speak in public and concluded that he sounds less than convincing on some things and, with a doubt, passionate on others and that seasoned observes find it easy to tell the difference. I suggest those observations explain why some people think Mitt is plastic – their words not mine.
JLF9999 on 21 Feb 2011 at 12:51 pm #
I said above “…convincing on some things and, with a doubt…,”. It should have read “without a doubt”. I just want to be clear and sometimes I am not.