//
CPAC

>Ghosts of CPACs Past

>I’d thought post a couple of pics from the last time we went to CPAC, February 2003. My better pictures are from ’99 and ’00 but I didn’t have a digital camera back then!

Wright and Horowitz
Jeff Wright and David Horowitz. (Note the book he was signing for me: How To Beat The Democrats And Other Subversive Ideas).

J Wiz and Oliver North
J_Wizzle and Oliver North

Ann Coulter
The Always Disputatious Ann Coulter

Advertisements

Discussion

12 thoughts on “>Ghosts of CPACs Past

  1. > “The open marketplace of ideas brought her to prominence and has given her this responsibility you speak of and the same marketplace of ideas will remove her from her place of prominence if need be.” I agree 100%. I’m just saying that she lost this customer. I certainly recognize that this won’t impede her success any and I know she’s not broken hearted over it. I think, though, she is engaged more in the free market of sensationalism rather than ideas. I have categorized her with the WWF. What you see looks very real and sounds great, but at then end of the day one is left wondering whether she truly believes what she says or just talks to hear her own voice or to pander to those who are paying the bills. I think the latter is the case.

    Posted by Mark Mathews | February 10, 2008, 1:41 pm
  2. >Look, I used to really like her, but like many people given the great responsibility of educating people and being a voice in the culture, she abused this great privilege and has shown herself to be an unreliable, extremist source. Very disappointing!I certainly don’t defend everything she says. The open marketplace of ideas brought her to prominence and has given her this responsibility you speak of and the same marketplace of ideas will remove her from her place of prominence if need be.

    Posted by Jeff Wright | February 10, 2008, 2:59 am
  3. > “Part of Ann Coulter’s schtick is to say things in an exaggerated manner in order to make a point AND to draw attention to the point she is making. C’mon, would anyone have really paid attention if she wrote a column where she plainly listed in a measured fashion the points of difference she has with McCain?” If what one has to say has merit and substance, exaggeration is unnecessary. That is why I have such a problem with her statements. They obviously have no merit and lack any substance. They are exaggerated generalities and sweeping statements designed to influence people to think exactly like her. That kind of communicative manipulation affects only those who are not willing to critically evaluate her statements. Look, I used to really like her, but like many people given the great responsibility of educating people and being a voice in the culture, she abused this great privilege and has shown herself to be an unreliable, extremist source. Very disappointing!

    Posted by Mark Mathews | February 9, 2008, 3:31 pm
  4. >”I always wondered what Horowitz looked like.Not enough to do a Google search, of course, but I did wonder. ;)”If you want to know what his signature looks like, I have a book I’ll sell ya for about $50 or so. 🙂

    Posted by Jeff Wright | February 9, 2008, 2:21 am
  5. >I’ve been thinking about writing a post called Exegeting Ann. But I don’t have time. Part of Ann Coulter’s schtick is to say things in an exaggerated manner in order to make a point AND to draw attention to the point she is making. C’mon, would anyone have really paid attention if she wrote a column where she plainly listed in a measured fashion the points of difference she has with McCain? That’s a dime a dozen these past couple weeks. It wouldn’t have registered with anyone. But what happened? Everyone is citing Ann Coulter’s comment about voing for Hillary. And what does it highlight? The liberal aspects of McCain’s record. The fact that there are several issues where there is not much difference between McCain and Hillary. Its two steps forward, one step back and the one step back is her true intention. She knows people will say well, I’m not gonna vote for Hillary like she says (two steps forward) but, yeah, McCain does have some liberal positions (one step back). Out of all the people who have cited Ann Coulter this week, I wonder how many actually have read what she said in its entirety or listened to an interview with her. I’m sure most just heard it repeated that she said she’d campaign for Hillary. I actually don’t get that people still don’t get Coulter after all this time. She’s entertaining, smart, and makes a lot of good points. But if you’re turned off by the sensationalism you probably won’t be a fan. Coulter:”When we were at peace, Democrats wanted to raise taxes. Now there’s a war, so Democrats want to raise taxes. When there was a surplus, Democrats wanted to raise taxes. Now that there is a mild recession, Democrats want to raise taxes.””For six years, the Bush administration has kept America safe from another terrorist attack, allowing the Democrats to claim that the war on terrorism is a fraud, a “bumper sticker,” a sneaky ploy by a power-mad president to create an apocryphal enemy so he could spy on innocent librarians in Wisconsin. And that’s the view of the moderate Democrats. The rest of them think Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks.” Good stuff.

    Posted by Jeff Wright | February 9, 2008, 2:20 am
  6. >I always wondered what Horowitz looked like.Not enough to do a Google search, of course, but I did wonder. 😉

    Posted by Nathan P. Gilmour | February 8, 2008, 6:18 pm
  7. >To be fair a lot of the talk radio guys seem to be rallying around McCain since it seems to be apparent that McCain will indeed be the nominee. I’ve heard Bill Bennett, Sean Hannity, and Hugh Hewitt all saying good things about him even though they disagree with him in some areas…just to name a few.

    Posted by J.Wizzle | February 8, 2008, 5:16 pm
  8. > “they can fool the voters by nominating an open-borders, anti-tax cut, anti-free speech, global-warming hysteric, pro-human experimentation “Republican.” Which is to say, a Democrat.” Now, if you don’t see how over the top this language is I’m not sure your looking. You know very well he is not for “open borders,” you know very well he is not against any and all tax-cuts, you know very well he is not anti free-speech. With regard to being a “hysteric” on global warming I think he is entitled to his opinion. I get so frustrated at these extremist conservatives who say that EVERYONE who agrees with global warming is an idiot. I don’t necessarily buy into it but I’m not going to resort to personal attacks on those who do. In fact, I appreciate their concern. But Coulter is an extremist. As far as the stem-cell research thing, I am adamantly opposed to this kind of research on human fetuses and will loudly decry this vote. But to make the sweeping allegations and personal attacks that she makes is WAY over the top. I’m really not sure how you can’t see this. She is using rhetoric to paint a picture of McCain that you know is not true. And to not be able to see through it is comical.McCain is not the liberal Hillary clone that the loud-mouth talk show circuit is making him out to be. In fact, I think it is a shame how they have acted. A group of people I once enjoyed listening to and interacting with have turned into such sensationalists that I wouldn’t want to buy their wares for any reason anymore. It is shameful! I remember during the last election I went and saw Hannity in Dallas, I listened to him and Rush religiously and thought even then they were getting a little out of control. Looking back on all the positive points they were making about how great Bush was I now see how idiotic they are. If what they want is another Bush I’m afraid I’m out. That is the last thing this country needs. I will say it clearly, McCain is not perfect. He doesn’t claim to be nor do I think he is. I disagree with some of his voting but there is NOBODY that I agree with on everything. But McCain is being cast unfairly as something he is not. And to be quite honest, if he is not the conservative the loud-mouths want him to be, that’s fine with me.I’m just not sure how this whole thing got so far out of hand. I think the spin is out of control, it is not helpful, and it is defaming to a man who does not deserve that kind of treatment. One thing I am assured by is that this stupidity will pass, as it always does, and that the process of electing a President will take place and will voice the will of the people. I wonder about the old adage, the proof is in the pudding? It seems to me like McCain is getting the nomination and the other guys aren’t. Looks to me like the majority feel differently than this!

    Posted by Mark Mathews | February 8, 2008, 4:04 pm
  9. >Why would independents who are center-right vote for Hillary or Obama? It goes both ways.

    Posted by J.Wizzle | February 8, 2008, 2:19 pm
  10. >Excerpt from her most recent article: “Nominating McCain is the gesture of a desperate party. Republicans are so shell-shocked and demoralized by the success of the Bush Derangement Syndrome, they think they can fool the voters by nominating an open-borders, anti-tax cut, anti-free speech, global-warming hysteric, pro-human experimentation “Republican.” Which is to say, a Democrat. As the expression goes, given a choice between a Democrat and a Democrat, voters will always choose the Democrat. The only question remaining is: Hillary or Obama? On the litmus test issues of our time, only partially excluding Iraq, McCain is a liberal. — He excoriated Samuel Alito as too “conservative.” — He promoted amnesty for 20 million illegal immigrants. — He abridged citizens’ free speech (in favor of the media) with McCain-Feingold. — He hysterically opposes waterboarding terrorists and wants to shut down Guantanamo. Can I take a breath now? — He denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. — He opposes ANWR and supports the global warming cult, even posturing with fellow mountebank Arnold Schwarzenegger in front of solar panels. The only site that would have been more appropriate for Schwarzenegger in endorsing McCain would have been in front of an abortion clinic. Although McCain has the minimum pro-life record demanded by the voters of Arizona, in 2006, McCain voted in favor of using taxpayer funds to harvest stem cells from human embryos. He opposes a constitutional amendment to protect human life. And he frets that if Roe v. Wade were overruled, women’s lives would be “endangered.” This is the same John McCain who chides Mitt Romney today for “flip-flopping” on abortion. At least Romney flips and stays there. Of course the most important issue for pro-lifers is the Supreme Court. As long as Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, it doesn’t matter how many hearts and minds we’ve changed. So it’s not insignificant that McCain has called Justice Samuel Alito too conservative. We ended up with David Hackett Souter when a Republican president was actually looking for an Alito. Imagine how bad it will be when the “Republican” president isn’t even trying. McCain uses the boilerplate language of all Republicans in saying he will appoint “strict constructionists.” This is supposed to end all discussion of the courts. But if he’s picking strict constructionists, he will have to appoint judges who will commit to overturning McCain-Feingold. That could be our litmus test: Will you hold President McCain’s signature legislation restricting speech unconstitutional? In 2004, McCain criticized the federal marriage amendment, saying, it was “antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans.” Really? Preventing the redefinition of a 10,000-year-old institution — marriage, that is, not John McCain — is part of the core philosophy of being a Republican? I had no idea. I’m not a lawyer — oh wait, yes, I am — but Republicans were proposing to amend the Constitution, a process the Constitution specifically describes. It’s like saying it’s antithetical to the core philosophy of Republicans to require presidents to be at least 35 years old. It’s in the Constitution! And Republicans — other than the ones who voted for McCain-Feingold — support the Constitution. You might say it’s part of our core philosophy…”She concludes:”If Hillary is elected president, we’ll have a four-year disaster, with Republicans ferociously opposing her, followed by Republicans zooming back into power, as we did in 1980 and 1994, and 2000. (I also predict more Oval Office incidents with female interns.) If McCain is elected president, we’ll have a four-year disaster, with the Republicans in Congress co-opted by “our” president, followed by 30 years of Democratic rule. There’s your choice, America.”On the merits (rather than just calling her crazy, etc.), what is the problem with her assessment? I disagree with taking the next step and voting for Hillary. Even if I grant that her conclusion is correct, it would be better to vote for McCain and get beat rather than helping to beat him by voting for Clinton. But she provided three historical precedents where a similar thing to what she is describing has happened. Again, I don’t agree with voting for Clinton but where is she off in her assessment?If the choice is Hillary and McCain, why would anyone center-left vote for McCain?

    Posted by Jeff Wright | February 8, 2008, 12:28 pm
  11. > “Back when there was no white in my beard.” No white? Is that you sitting down or standing up? I’m having a tough time distinguishing? :-)Ann Coulter can now consider herself less of a conservative than John McCain. Of course I am alluding to her most ridiculous statement about backing Clinton over McCain. She is indicative of Conservative extremism. Her “if you’re as conservative as me you’re really a conservative” approach is over the top. I used to like her but she has become too extreme. I’m sure it’s all just for ratings (at least I’d like to think so).

    Posted by Mark Mathews | February 8, 2008, 7:49 am
  12. >Back when there was no white in my beard. Awesome!

    Posted by Jeff Wright | February 8, 2008, 4:47 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

From the Vault

Friend of Grace

Photobucket
All articles © 2007-2011 by the respective authors of the Conservative Reformed Mafia. All Rights Reserved.
%d bloggers like this: