Comments on: OUT WITH THE OLD, IN WITH THE NEW: CPAC 2010

By: Ben

Ben — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:51:30 +0000

Are you sure there were “invitations” as such? If so, I didn’t receive one. While I did not attend CPAC, it’s my impression they were open to any blogger that applied, and there were plenty of bloggers there who have criticized Redstate in the past.

Entirely tongue in cheek, Ben. I have no doubt that if I had decided to go, I would have been able to get credentialed.

ed.

By: michael reynolds

michael reynolds — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 02:46:49 +0000

Maybe a Blue RINO party is in the making just to escape the loonies.

Let me know where the convention is, I’ll show up.

By: grognard

grognard — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 02:40:28 +0000

And the left is doing the same thing, no room for Blue Dogs in that party. So it looks like politics will boil down to two groups of people drinking Kool aid, wearing tinfoil hats and screaming at each other. Maybe a Blue RINO party is in the making just to escape the loonies.

By: Plumb Bob

Plumb Bob — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 21:34:42 +0000

Interesting that you criticize the “neo right” for failing to understand the difference between issues and principles — then approvingly cite David Frum lambasting a document purporting to state principles on the grounds that it does not address issues.

Make up your mind, willya?

By: Fitting in at CPAC

Fitting in at CPAC — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:00:40 +0000

[...] Joyner | Thursday, February 18, 2010 Rick Moran isn’t at CPAC 2010, both because he can’t justify the expense of traveling and because [...]

By: Jim

Jim — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 18:39:28 +0000

Hi Rick

Very nice post. I am grateful for the way in which you select the quotes you wish to highlight and argue or expand on them.

I also respect your boldness in sticking your chin out and getting hit so often.

I think there is ferment out there that has yet to settle. Right now the internet and new media are still new and people are still learning to use them. The loudest voices are trying to shout out the more deliberative ones. I think people like George Will are attacked because they have been around for years and were unable to prevent the world from turning. Passion, not reason, dictates the assault. And simple jealousy.

Personally, I am a registered Democrat and have been since I was 18. Before 9/11 I was reflexive and didn’t think much about it, just voted with the Democratic herd. Since 9/11 I have evolved in a much more conservative direction. But I take the Tea Parties with a grain or salt, I have not made up my mind about Sarah Palin (she is light on critical experience and could have a better education - but our current president destroyed the unstated reqirements for “qualifications”) and I was willing to listen to the birth certificate arguments (and evern read the lawsuits) before deciding that the proponents have no evidence and not much law behind them. I am still deciding whether the Natural Born Citizen clause is itself an anachronism (note that the Founders didn’t define natural born citizenship or place the burden of proof on the candidate, signs they themselves didn’t feel it critically important. The Founders didn’t even amend changes when they got around to Free Speech, etc.)
In other words I try not to reject arguments out-of-hand without deliberation.

I think there are millions of voters out there who are broadly similar to me. They know something is wrong, and think that the country should be more “conservative” - whatever that means to them. Now they are listening to the extremes and will eventually move toward the middle. The so-called “Center Right.”
It would be nice in the meantime to stop name-calling and argue the arguments not the motives of the arguer.

Thanks again.