CPAC and the Big Tent
Don Feder is upset that Islamists and Soros-funded advocates of drug legalization were allowed into the CPAC conference this year.
He`s got a point; Ann Coulter`s remarks would have caused far less trouble had there been no Moslems present, and ANYTHING involving Soros should not be allowed into our midst. What`s next? A Moveon.ogr booth?
He`s got a point; Ann Coulter`s remarks would have caused far less trouble had there been no Moslems present, and ANYTHING involving Soros should not be allowed into our midst. What`s next? A Moveon.ogr booth?
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 5:36 AM
5 Comments:
Shouldn't be allowed?
Why? What are you afraid of?
Do you think some Soros-funded group will present better arguments?
Arguments you can't answer?
Arguments you can't defeat?
Or do you want to rethink what you just said?
Money speaks very loudly, Michael, and I see no reason to allow Soros to manipulate the tone and tenor of a conservative meeting. If groups sponsored by the left can buy access, they can leverage the meeting.
There is a limited amount of time to discuss issues; if we let every left wing group in our midst, in our own conventions, then we will spend all of our time arguing-which is the whole point of their coming. This is about disruption, not debate, Michael. It`s about making CPAC ineffective.
Conservatives should welcome any and all debate, but it is foolish to allow the enemy into our own citadels to turn productive meetings into arguments. This is akin to inviting Nazis into the war room during WWII, so they could rebut our generals.
I`m all for freedom of expression and an open forum, but I think there is an appropriate place and time. CPAC is neither the place, nor the time.
This is an excerpt from an essay by Paul Craig Roberts:
Last week’s annual Conservative Political Action Conference signaled the transformation of American conservatism into brownshirtism. A former Justice Department official named Viet Dinh got a standing ovation when he told the CPAC audience that the rule of law mustn’t get in the way of President Bush protecting Americans from Osama bin Laden.
Former Republican congressman Bob Barr, who led the House impeachment of President Bill Clinton, reminded the CPAC audience that our first loyalty is to the US Constitution, not to a leader. The question, Barr said, is not one of disloyalty to Bush, but whether America "will remain a nation subject to, and governed by, the rule of law or the whim of men."
The CPAC audience answered that they preferred to be governed by Bush. According to Dana Milbanks, a member of the CPAC audience named Richard Sorcinelli loudly booed Barr, declaring: "I can’t believe I’m in a conservative hall listening to him say Bush is off course trying to defend the United States." A woman in the audience told Barr that the Constitution placed Bush above the law and above non-elected federal judges.
These statements gallop beyond the merely partisan. They express the sentiments of brownshirtism. Our leader über alles.
This is Michael again. I think there is almost nothing left of any "conservative" movement.
My earlier comment was simply that if you were correct in your position(s), if you were assured of your facts and philosophy, you wouldn't worry about a booth or table of (in my opinion) crackpots from a (fact) crackpot such as Soros.
I think, though, that despite your own decency, you are allied with a bunch of people who have sold out you and your fellow advocates of decency.
The so-called "conservative" movement today is led by fascists and imperialists and, in Roberts' words, brownshirts.
In many ways you are, as usual, correct, Michael; the Conservative movement HAS been sold out. We need to take our movement back.
I had seen Paul Roberts piece, and he does make some good points. I still think that the C in CPAC should stand for something, and that one should not let ones enemies co-opt the discussion. Soros may be a crackpot, but he is a filthy rich, dangerous crackpot who has subverted elections throughout the world-particularly in the old eastern block where he has pumped money into elections to keep people of his own ilk in power-that is, non-communist leftists. He`s been very successful at that.
Again, I think it is a matter of proper forum. Would conservatives be allowed to have a booth at a comparable liberal event? It would be unthinkable. Roberts may consider qualifications brownshirt tactics (sometimes they are) but that means that we no longer have freedom of association, which I think is the greater tyranny. CPAC should be able to make being conservative a qualification.
My brother wrote a review of a book by Pat Buchanan, and he enraged the Buchananites by taking Pat to task on some of his stands; suddenly my brother was a radical neocon to these people. (Brian is not, nor has he ever been, a neocon.) I`m not advocating this kind of ``intellectual purity`` by any stretch, but I think there are limits, there is a thing which defines conservativism. Sorosianism clearly falls outside of those parameters, and has no business in a conservative convention.
Anyway, you make some great points (as usual) Michael!
Possible Correction
Viet Dinh has apparently denied the statement attributed to him.
For now, let us think he was misquoted and let me -- and anyone else who cares -- do some further research.
My comments about the hijacking of the "conservative" movement stand, but perhaps Mr. Dinh is falsely accused.
Post a Comment
<< Home