Busy with a number of projects today, including entertaining Bruce with whom I just had a nice lunch and to whom I just showed a gas station selling a gallon of regular for over $5, but did want to remind our readers despite the CPAC dustup, many conservative institutions favor the inclusion of gay conservatives.

Shortly, after returning home (from spending my early afternoon with Bruce where CPAC came up), I caught this headline on the National Review’s homepage:

On Sunday, Bruce reported that “nothing has changed [since] The CPAC Board voted before CPAC 2012 to remove GOProud as a sponsoring organization.” Today, the flagship conservative magazine offered “Five reasons CPAC should embrace the gay conservative group.”

CPAC’s decision to exclude this gay conservative group is not sitting well with all movement conservatives. Daniel Foster, the National Review’s news editor, makes a strong case for inclusion:

GOProud is consistently big-C “movement” conservative on the important issues — especially on fiscal policy and the size of government, but also on social issues such as abortion. After all, GOProud was founded by a couple of Log Cabin Republicans dissatisfied with that group’s Main-Street-partnership-style centrism. This alone is a pretty good reason for their inclusion at CPAC. But arguably more interesting, and more important for a powwow that’s ostensibly about making conservative advocacy more effective, is GOProud’s lower-case conservatism.

Read the whole thing.  Foster holds that “the move against GOProud does seem to be all downside.” Indeed.

Just another reminder about the broad-based conservative movement.  The current organizers of CPAC don’t speak for all conservatives.

The incumbent President of the United States has decided to lay off blaming his predecessor for the nation’s sorry economic and fiscal situation and is now blaming someone else:

Facing an end of the week deadline, President Barack Obama said Monday that Congress can avert sweeping across-the-board cuts with “just a little bit of compromise,” as he sought to stick lawmakers with the blame if the budget ax falls.

Obama’s always trying to stick someone else with the blame.  He tries to pin the blame on Congress even while, as Jim Geraghty reports, he “has not met any congressional leaders face-to-face to discuss avoiding sequestration yet.”

If he really wanted to avoid these cuts, he’d been holding regular meetings with these leaders.  Seems he’d rather blame Congress than sit down with its leaders.

And this from the guy who four years ago told Jay Leno that one thing he wanted “to break is a pattern in Washington where everybody is always looking for somebody else to blame.”

Physician, heal thyself.