Although I returned earlier today from my mini-vacation, I have yet to weigh in on the decision of CPAC to exclude our friends at GOProud. This is sad news indeed and a sign that some conservatives would rather dwell on trivial issues than focus on our common conservatives principles. Although, by and large, rank-and-file “movement” conservatives (particularly those born since 1960) have become increasingly welcome of their gay fellows, there still are pockets in the movement who would exclude folks like us.
And some of those pockets have considerable sway in the conservative movement today.
We here at GayPatriot share the disappointment of GOProud’s Board who released a statement earlier today:
We are deeply disappointed at the decision of the American Conservative Union to bar GOProud from participating in CPAC. They are well within their right to do so, but a decision like this will have consequences.
For the last two years, GOProud has sought to support CPAC and keep the conservative movement united. . . .
What is truly sad is that this troubling development takes place at a time when we should be united and focused on defeating Barack Obama.
It is unfortunate at this time of remarkable unity among conservatives and Republicans about the need to focus on the principles Ronald Reagan articulated throughout his political career, cutting the size of the federal government, reducing its scope, returning power to individuals and the associations they choose to join or otherwise support that some would seek to exclude an organization committed to those ideals.
We are delighted to note that a number of leading “new media” conservatives have decided to boycott CPAC as a result of the decision to exclude GOProud as Glenn Reynolds reports:
ANDREW BREITBART WILL SKIP CPAC over its GOProud ban.
Roger Simon is boycotting too. And I won’t be there either. Of course, I don’t usually go anyway.
NICK ADDS: Great to see Breitbart standing with us. The true sign, however, will be to see what Ann Coulter does.
Just caught this on Yahoo!’s homepage.
So, the Republicans just want “partisan payback.” I guess in the Yahoo! universe, Republicans are not allowed to vote down a bill on principle.
Now to the linked article:
Debate on the measure was often testy and reflected the growing frustration among lawmakers. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi pleaded for an end to “this theater of the absurd” and said “it’s time for us to get real.”
Using that line to close out the text of the article, the Associated Press suggests that the realist Pelosi is standing up to the absurdist Republicans.
(And make sure you check out the beginning of the article, noting how the author describes Reid’s plan, making it sound like a conservative approach to our nation’s spending problem. And in the caption, the plan is “Harry Reid’s debt plan,” described without adjectives while the Republicans are portrayed as vindictive partisans.)
Here’s something I can’t quite figure out:
In all the back-and-forth over the debt ceiling increase, it’s become de rigueur to demand program cuts and budget tightening now rather than in the ‘out-years’ because the cuts will never materialize. Inasmuch, we’re often told: “You can’t bind a future Congress”.
If that’s the case, then why is there such a thing as “mandatory spending”?
-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)
So let’s see:
House Republicans have so far put forward and passed THREE specific plans waiting now to become law.
What follows are the full texts of ALL of the plans put forward and passed by Obama and the Senate Democrats: .
-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)
I’d always wondered if, in 2008, Barack Obama and his political team were not as smart politically as they were lucky. He got one fundamental thing right as he launched his campaign now more than four years ago; people wanted “change.” And he had an organization.
In short, he had the right theme at the right time with the right organization. But, his campaign seemed to flounder when faced with a tough offensive, the Hillary campaign when she found her second wind in the late primaries and the bounce the McCain campaign got with the Palin pick (until the media helped destroyed that accomplished Alaska reformer).
Even conservatives wanted “change.” Conservative pundits, bloggers and activists, while (generally) genuinely liking George W. Bush and grateful for his leadership in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 as well as for his determination to win the war in Iraq, regretted that that good man didn’t do enough to hold the line on federal spending, that he failed to use his political capital to eliminate unnecessary federal programs — and to deregulate our economy.
Obama seized that mantra of change (that even conservatives hoped for) and won, even drawing in even the votes of some disgruntled conservatives and libertarians.
Now, Peggy Noonan observes that the Democrat is not good at politics*, “and he isn’t good at politics because he doesn’t really get people.” People don’t really love him, she claims. He’s better at tearing down than building up:
The fact is, he’s good at dismantling. He’s good at critiquing. He’s good at not being the last guy, the one you didn’t like. But he’s not good at building, creating, calling into being. He was good at summoning hope, but he’s not good at directing it and turning it into something concrete that answers a broad public desire. (more…)
What MSM coverage I’ve read these past forty-eight hour has slanted against the GOP, as if the opposition party were the hard-liners in the current debate. Take a gander at this opening paragraph from an AP article which headlined Yahoo! when I returned to my room Friday night:
In an unforgiving display of partisanship, the Republican-controlled House approved emergency legislation Friday night to avoid an unprecedented government default and Senate Democrats scuttled it less than two hours later in hopes of a better deal.
The Republican House’s action to provide legislation to prevent default is a display of partisanship!?!? What then is the Democratic Senate’s failure to pass any such legislation, indeed, it’s failure to pass a budget in about 820 days?
Or the president’s failure to present his own plan? So, accomplishment is partisanship and inaction is then both opposition to rank partisanship and a principled approach to working in the national interest fixing our nation’s finances?
Seems it’s the Democrats’ strategy to do nothing while drawing the media fire to the Republican plan(s), the only one(s) ratified by an elected legislative chamber. The Democrats, including the president, know they can count on the MSM to cover for their inaction.
Well, it doesn’t seem to be working as well as President Obama would like. The media may but the Democrats’ schtick, but increasingly the American people are not. His poll numbers continued to drop, with his “job approval rating is at a new low, averaging 40% in July 26-28 Gallup Daily tracking. His prior low rating of 41% occurred several times, the last of which was in April. As recently as June 7, Obama had 50% job approval.” (Emphasis added.) He’s fallen ten points in fewer than two months: