Archive for the 'CPAC' Category

Mike Stark, while he was roaming around the Conservative Political Action Conference, caught up with Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-Alpine, Calif.) and had a couple questions for the longtime representative.

So I was going to try to ask all the candidates how old they thought the earth was.

Is it 6,000 years old as the fundie base claims?

Or is it 4 billion years old as every sane person in the world accepts?

Well, you know me - I had to get there kind of circuitously; I couldn’t just come right out and ask the question.

Man, was I surprised at the answer I got…

Duncan Hunter said - I’m not kidding - you can hear it yourself, “the complexities of life manifest something more than a half-assed creation.”

Click here for the audio.

CPAC Star Is A Gay Porn Star

Posted by Matt Browner Hamlin on March 6th, 2007

I wonder what Corporal Matt Sanchez, recipient of CPAC’s Jeane Kirkpatrick Academic Freedom Award, thinks about Ann Coulter’s use of the the word faggot as a slur on John Edward’s masculinity. Sanchez is a thirty-six year old junior at Columbia University and a Marine reservist. Why do I wonder what Sanchez thinks about Coulter’s anti-gay comments? Well it turns out this celebrated conservative student and veteran was a gay porn star in a former life.

Now, if you’re like me, you might think, “Hmm, 36 years old and he’s a junior in college and only a corporal in the Marines?” Odd, but not totally implausible. But Sanchez’ face tinkled a few gay bells out there in fairyland, and last night I began to get emails letting me know that his rather late appearance on the Ivy League scene was because Sanchez has had a lengthy career in gay porn, working under the names Rod Majors (NSFW) and Pierre LaBranche, starring in such art films as Jawbreaker, Donkey Dick, and Glory Holes Of Fame 3, where his “11-inch uncut monster cock” earned him a devoted following.

Now, porn stars are entitled to enter the miliary, although Sanchez obviously had to do it on the downlow. Porn stars are entitled to have a right-wing ideology, even though the very people he supports would love to see gay porn stars strung up by the nuts. (Wait, have I seen that movie?) But, Oh.The.Irony. of Sanchez appearing with Bill O’Reilly who only a couple of days went apoplectic over San Francisco’s “Colt Studio Day.” And OH, the irony of Ann “Faggot” Coulter happily posing with Sanchez for a photo-op. The right-wing has gobbled this porn hunk up with a spoon, never knowing that tons of men have gobbled up his monster cock ON FILM. I love it, I love it, I love it.

Here’s Sanchez being well received at CPAC by famed right-wingers Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter. At best, this proves that Coulter and Malkin do have plenty of gay friends after all. Maybe this new revelation will make them question whether it’s really worth preventing this Marine from marrying a man if he wants to. At worst, Sanchez will be hung out to dry like Jeff Gannon, who’s written a book but never found a job working within the conservative movement. The adoration he’s received will be forgotten by the women pictured alongside him below.

Cpacsanchez

Sanchez-Coulter

Here’s a video representation of what the discovery that Sanchez is gay doesn’t look like on the conservative blogs:

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

CPAC Speeches

Posted by Matt Browner Hamlin on March 6th, 2007

The speeches from the 2007 Conservative Political Action Conference are beginning to be posted. I will update this list periodically as I see candidates added to the CPAC Speeches page.

Rep. Duncan Hunter [DOC link]
Fmr. Mayor Rudy Giuliani [DOC link]

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Via Theo North, who says:

Yeah, that’s Jordan Sekulow. Gary Marx is visible in there for a bit as well. Not sure that this video is exactly conclusive evidence of malfeasance, but there’s a little bit more to look at.

I agree, this isn’t conclusive, but it certainly is suspect.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Veterans At CPAC

Posted by Matt Browner Hamlin on March 5th, 2007

One of Michelle Malkin’s posts on CPAC included a quote from Joel Mowbray, with an added dig by Malkin at YearlyKos.

“At left-wing conferences, you leave hating America. At right-wing conferences, you leave loving America.”

That’s exactly how I felt at the end of the dinner after shaking the hands of the disabled vets who came by crutch and wheelchair from Walter Reed to spend a few hours at CPAC.

Since people don’t speak in hyperlinks, the meaning of linking to YearlyKos in Mowbray’s quote is 100% pure Malkin.

I actually wasn’t at the banquet Friday night that included the wounded veterans. I cannot speak to whether or not vets were brought in from Walter Reed, or how many of them there were, but there’s no reason to doubt that her description of vets at CPAC that night is accurate.

The only wounded Iraq/Afghanistan vet that I personally saw was a young man who was tabling with a rightwing, pro-troop organization downstairs in the vendor section. I forget the name of the group - Mike Stark might know. That said, during the question and answer session of the panel “The Left’s Repeated Campaign Against the American Soldier,” a good number of young veterans stood up to ask questions. I have no doubt that there were veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars at CPAC this weekend.

The larger point, though, is that both CPAC and YKos and any other political conference have some wounded veterans there and even more veterans who were fortunate enough to return home without physical injuries.. At the DNC winter meeting I spent a lot of time talking with a College Democrat who spent a year as a Marine in Iraq, came home wounded, and now walks on crutches. It’s stupid to suggest that either side has ownership of loving wounded veterans; it’s just not true.

Worst of all, posts like Malkin’s and statements like Mowbray’s make wounded veterans into trinkets to be displayed by rightwing bloggers to prove their case. If Malkin wanted to honor the troops beyond simply wearing an paratrooper pin on her lapel and claiming sole ownership of troop support, she’d recognize that just as our military serves to protect all of America and Americans of all political stripes support the troops, including those at YearlyKos.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

The Crisis in Conservatism

Posted by Kombiz Lavasany on March 4th, 2007

Max Blumenthal mashes a fascinating video of his experience at CPAC for The Nation. It’s a precise undoing of the modern conservative movement that many of us watched on TV this weekend. It’s part watching the circus side show and train wreck that is modern conservatism mixed with Max’s commentary in a soothing NPR tone. Enjoy.

Cross posted at The Huffington Post

Newt Gingrich’s entrance into CPAC was planned for someone who expected to win the straw poll. Though he didn’t win the poll outright, Newt effectively did win the straw poll. He tied Romney for 30% of total votes, coming in just behind Rudy Giuliani’s 34%. But Gingrich was received to a louder ovation than any other candidate throughout the convention, with much of the auditorium chanting “Newt!” before he even entered the room.

Most of all, though, was Gingrich’s decision to enter through the back of the room and make his way through the crowd. He shook hands and dozens of people stood on their chairs to catch a glimpse of Gingrich. Cameras flashed in Obama-like volume and the room was literally shaking. When Gingrich got up to speak, he was given a standing ovation that lasted over 30 seconds. Once he started talking, the room lit up with flash bulb strobes like the start of the World Series.

If my description sounds dramatic, trust me it was. The receptions most candidates received were excited, but not overwhelming. While Giuliani received a resounding ovation on his entrance and Romney won big applause at the end of his speech, neither crowd reaction conveyed a sense of celebrity reception. Gingrich, on the other hand, did.

Gingrich began his speech with high-minded language about conservatives elevating the level of debate in American politics to win back the voting public. ” We need to go out to the American people and have an idea-oriented, positive dialogue.”* Gingrich repeatedly stressed that conservatives have better solutions and proposals than Democrats, solutions and proposals that Gingrich claimed were smarter and mature than what Democrats would put out there.

Gingrich, who said that he would not make any decisions about his presidential candidacy before September 30, 2007, proposed that the eventual Democratic and Republican nominees pledge to have weekly ninety minute dialogues with no moderator and only a time keeper. Gingrich wants candidates to pledge now to hold these debates over the last nine weeks of the 2008 campaign. The goal is to have a more honest, mature conversation about the course of our country. “If we insist on an adult conversation, our country will reunify itself with remarkable speed.”

Yet despite his praise for solutions and proposals, Gingrich did not go far to elucidate what big ideas conservatives could put forward to make America better and win back the voting public. He specifically mentioned making English the official language for government, passing legislation to keep “one nation under God” in the pledge of allegiance, and creating a system of rating health care providers by quality and price to enable better consumer choice. The first two “proposals” Gingrich put out would not do a whit for anything that is substantively wrong with this country. The third is a marginal improvement that wouldn’t guarantee that even one person who cannot currently afford to have health care now would be able to get it after Gingrich’s rating system is implemented. Bill Scher’s response is spot-on:

But these are your big solutions?…While most secular voters will say it’s fine to have “God” in the Pledge or on money, keeping what’s already there sure isn’t a “solution” to anything, and it won’t lure secular voters into the conservative camp.

Gingrich called for adult conversations and then proceeded to insult a long list of prominent Democrats and the played-out Republican punching bag, our oldest ally France. He went so far as to suggest that Democrats hate freedom when talking about purchasing health care.

But the point where Gingrich went completely over the line and his rhetoric about raising the level of dialogue in America was smacked in the face by the ingrained traditions of racism and bigotry in the Republican Party was when he addressed Hurricane Katrina. Gingrich first talked about the hurricane as a failure of government - municipal, state, and federal government to adequately respond to Katrina. But beyond the failures of governments, Gingrich saw a failure of the people of New Orleans [Audio courtesy of Bill Scher].

How can you have the mess we have in New Orleans, and not have had deep investigations of the federal government, the state government, the city government, and the failure of citizenship in the Ninth Ward, where 22,000 people were so uneducated and so unprepared, they literally couldn’t get out of the way of a hurricane.

Gingrich blamed the victims of Katrina for their victimhood. He clearly implied that it was because they were “uneducated” they couldn’t get out of the way of something as conspicuous as a hurricane. It was their own failure because they were bad citizens, according to Gingrich.

There you have it, folks. Raising the level of debate in politics, as described by Newt Gingrich, involves blaming victims for their victimhood, defaming your political opponents, and putting forth ideological legislation that doesn’t help anyone other than conservatives who don’t like the fact that there are Spanish-speakers with US passports. Gingrich’s overwhelming appeal to CPAC voters is notable for his ability to mask some of his party’s most reactionary ideas in the language of his ideological father Ronald Reagan. Just because he doesn’t use Ann Coulter’s diction doesn’t mean that he appeals to a less offensive, hate-filled segment of the Republican base. Gingrich showed a truly shocking ability to speak out of both sides of his mouth with regards to aspirational campaign rhetoric. He wants new, innovative discourse, but only proposes tired, divisive Republican proposals that don’t make this country any better than it is today for anyone who doesn’t subscribe to his regressive Republican ideology.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

CPAC Straw Poll

Posted by Matt Browner Hamlin on March 3rd, 2007

The CPAC straw poll is an important indicator of where the Republican activist base stands. You can view the whole PowerPoint presentation of the results here [PPT link], as put together by pollster Fabrizio McLaughlin. Voters were asked to rank their first and second choice for the nomination.

CANDIDATE–Combined Total–(First Choice)-[Second Choice]

Giuliani 34% (17%) [16%]
Romney 30% (21%) [9%]
Gingrich 30% (14%) [16%]
Brownback 24% (15%) [8%]
McCain 20% (12%) [8%]
Tancredo 9% (< 5%) [5%]
Huckabee 8% (< 5%) [6%]
Hunter 7% (< 5%) [5%]
Paul 6% (< 5%) [< 5%]
Gilmore 6% (< 5%) [< 5%]

There were 1705 ballots in the straw poll, representing 49 states and DC (Alaska was the only state missing). Balloting took place between Thursday morning and Friday afternoon.

This was a split decision. Gingrich, a non-candidate, and Brownback, a decidedly second-tier candidate, placed strongly, while Giuliani and Romney performed where their reputations as front-runners demands. John McCain clearly lost big, an indication of his lack of support in the conservative base. Only seven points separated the top tier of candidates in the first choice round, with two from the top tier as said by conventional wisdom, and two out performers. Gingrich and Giuliani were pretty much everyone’s second choice. Given the fact that Gingrich is not campaigning and Giuliani, McCain, Romney and Brownback are, I’d say that Gingrich’s numbers have the most room for growth. Brownback should also be heartened by his strong performance, an indication that he has appeal within the conservative base and can grow his campaign as his name recognition rises.

It should also be noted that Romney paid for supporters to come to CPAC and vote for him in the straw poll. I wouldn’t be shocked if other candidates did the same thing, but Romney’s efforts to buy the straw poll were documented in the New York Times.

More CPAC straw poll data and analysis below the fold.

(more…)

In a follow-up to the results thread from Thursday, Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) edged out former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani in the Spartanburg, S.C. Straw Poll by two votes in a surprise late surge. South Carolina ‘08 has the results.

John McCain: 164
Rudy Giuliani: 162
Duncan Hunter: 158
Sam Brownback: 85
Mitt Romney: 80
Mike Huckabee: 21

McCain picked up 78 votes since Thursday’s thread with Giuliani adding 39.

In Washington, D.C., former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney bought his way to the top in the Conservative Political Action Conference straw poll. Jonathan Martin of The Politico reports:

Thanks to the support of hundreds of college students, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney won the CPAC straw poll. Romney took 21% of the vote to former New York Mayor Rudy Giuilani’s 17%. Sen. Sam Brownback came in third with 15%, ahead of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s 14%. Sen. John McCain, the only GOP contender to not address the conference, took 12%. 1,705 votes were cast, many of them by College Republicans whose registration and in some cases travel and lodging was footed by Romney’s camp. [emphasis added]

More statistical analysis from Martin:

Giuliani spokeswoman Maria Comella responds that “It’s clear Mayor Giuliani’s proven record of results, decisive leadership and optimistic vision is resonating with Republicans.” I should’ve noted further up, btw, that in the “combined” question — where voters’ first and second choices were added together — Giuliani came out on top with 34% of the vote. Romney and Gingrich each took 30%, Brownback had 24% and McCain 20%. [misspelling fixed from original]

Adam Nagourney of the New York Times was in attendance at CPAC yesterday. His article on the conference completely whitewashes the content of Ann Coulter’s attacks on the Democratic presidential field. Nagourney writes:

The conference drew thousands of attendees, many of whom waited in a long line out the door for a late-afternoon appearance by Ann Coulter, the conservative author and commentator. Still, the tone of the conference was less excitement about the 2008 campaign than concern about the ideological credentials of the three leading contenders for the Republican nomination.

Nagourney does not discuss the content of Coulter’s speech. He does not address the raucous applause that greeted her and followed almost every line of her speech, which resembled a stand-up comic routine for its lack of narrative and sole reliance on cheap one line jokes about Democrats. Most importantly, Nagourney does not mention that Coulter called John Edwards a faggot and the crowd loved it.

There were over fifty non-elected official speakers at CPAC yesterday. Nagourney’s article mentions seven Republican politicians and only two political commentators, conservative blogger Paloma Zepeda and Coulter. By giving Coulter such a prominent reference in his article at the expense of scores of other Republican speakers, Nagourney sets her out as the major figure at the event. There is no doubt about that. But by failing to even hint at what Coulter stands for, Nagourney allows her hateful speech that the Republican attendees of CPAC adore and approve to go unchallenged and unquestioned.

My question to Nagourney’s editors at the New York Times is this: do you believe that Coulter’s homophobic rhetoric is so acceptable that you find no need to discredit her in your paper? The New York Times has validated Coulter’s homophobia and framed it as completely acceptable political discourse, not worthy of mention or elucidation in their report on CPAC. In so doing, the Times has given Coulter license to preach her hate with impunity, knowing that it will not hurt coverage of her in the mainstream press. Not only did they validate her in this way, but they allowed Nagourney to highlight her appearance as the most newsworthy of all other political speeches by non-politicians at CPAC. While Coulter certainly made news yesterday, it wasn’t for merely showing up as Nagourney suggests.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Close
E-mail It
Socialized through Gregarious 42