CPAC: Highs and Lows

[Annie]

A very good opportunity for conservatives to speak and hear what others think. I didn't catch as much as I'd hoped. While Glenn Beck is not my favorite, I caught most of his address and he hammered home the points that people are concerned about. I liked that he talked about 'the opportunity to fail,' something missing from our lexicon for too long. It's out of many failures that success often is born. With risks, comes the possibility of either failure or success.

Equating the US spending under Bush and moreso under Obama with a drunk is probably the best analogy that I've heard. Will America reach bottom? Have we already? November will give a good indication.

Now the low point, picked up by reading. It is one thing to say that within any party extremists will be present, that in fact is a truism. What isn't is allowing them a place of prominence, taking their money and in return allowing them to 'sponsor.'

I couldn't back Ron Paul because of such back when, I can't see myself aligned with those that do.

This is serious if Conservatives really do care about the Constitution and wanting a better country:

Power Line - Return of the John Birch Society?

RETURN OF THE JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY?

February 20, 2010 Posted by Scott at 7:16 AM
In his history of National Review, former NR senior editor Jeffrey Hart notes one consequence of the 1964 election at the magazine. "The odor of the John Birch Society had been so strong and so intolerable, and so damaging to Goldwater," Hart recalls, "that National Review decided that for the future of American conservatism, decisive distance had to be laid down irrevocably between the magazine and the society."

That distance had originally been marked off in a 1962 editorial, "but that had not been enough. The distinction would now have to be made, once and for all, between a viable conservatism and the fantastic theories that energized the leadership of the JBS." Among the JBS's "fantastic theories" was the proposition that Dwight Eisenhower had been a Communist agent.

NR sought to separate the JBS from the conservative movement with a "root-and-branch attack" in October 1965. That month NR published a special section of the magazine denouncing the JBS in contributions by Buckley as well as NR senior editors James Burnham and Frank Meyer, along with endorsement letters by leading conservative figures including Goldwater himself. Hart describes the opening of the special section ("The Background") as "an act of war" that "takes no prisoners."

Bill Buckley provided his own account of related events in Flying High: Remembering Barry Goldwater, excerpted here by Commentary. The JBS responded in its inimitable style here.

The annual Conservative Political Action Conference is a great event attended by just about everybody who is anybody in the conservative movement. It also attracts a lot of college students who aspire to make a contribution to the movement.

ABC's Jonathan Karl reports that this year's CPAC event was co-sponsored, unbelievably to me, by the John Birch Society. Karl quotes some of Buckley's characteristically vibrant denunciations of the JBS. "Two years after Buckley's death," Karl observes, "the John Birch Society is no longer banished; it is listed as one of about 100 co-sponsors of the 2010 CPAC."

Karl reasonably asks: "Why is the Birch Society a co-sponsor?"

"They're a conservative organization," according to Lisa Depasquale, the CPAC Director for the American Conservative Union, which runs CPAC. "Beyond that," she told Karl, "I have no comment."

Additional comment is required, and if Depasquale will not provide it, I will. This is a disgrace.

Power Line - Return of the John Birch Society?

 

[skookerasbil]

Annie........the reason I couldnt support Paul is his stick your head in the sand foreign policy, which I think is simply unrealistic. But damn...........who couldnt support much of what he proposes for domestic policy. In that regard, he mirrors much of the Tea Party people.


And yup...........regarding Obama being drunk on spending. All people have to do is apply his math to their own personal finances. Imagine Obama in charge of the checkbook in your home? He's be just fine with running up your credit cards to 20K.............30K. The irony is..........the 21%ers ( many of the k00ks on this board) are always talking about "selfish corporate greed", but think nothing of sticking our children with enormous debt!!! Its fcukking laughable!!!

 

[Annie]

Annie........the reason I couldnt support Paul is his stick your head in the sand foreign policy, which I think is simply unrealistic. But damn...........who couldnt support much of what he proposes for domestic policy. In that regard, he mirrors much of the Tea Party people.


And yup...........regarding Obama being drunk on spending. All people have to do is apply his math to their own personal finances. Imagine Obama in charge of the checkbook in your home? He's be just fine with running up your credit cards to 20K.............30K. The irony is..........the 21%ers ( many of the k00ks on this board) are always talking about "selfish corporate greed", but think nothing of sticking our children with enormous debt!!! Its fcukking laughable!!!

When I first heard of Ron Paul, I was excited about his domestic ideas. I agree with you that his foreign policy is not realistic, even in the 19th C. My problem came as I read blogs supporting him. From there found Stormfront and Birchers were really backing him, with money. More than that, those were his audience with his long running, for pay, newsletter. Eventually he had those removed from online access.

Whether or not he's a racist, against Catholics, Jews, etc., many that back him are. It became a case of 'show me who your friends are...' That he scored so high in the CPAC poll and the JBS is a sponsor, gives me serious pause.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/media/106357-glenn-beck-cpac-2010-a.html

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Annie........the reason I couldnt support Paul is his stick your head in the sand foreign policy, which I think is simply unrealistic. But damn...........who couldnt support much of what he proposes for domestic policy. In that regard, he mirrors much of the Tea Party people.


And yup...........regarding Obama being drunk on spending. All people have to do is apply his math to their own personal finances. Imagine Obama in charge of the checkbook in your home? He's be just fine with running up your credit cards to 20K.............30K. The irony is..........the 21%ers ( many of the k00ks on this board) are always talking about "selfish corporate greed", but think nothing of sticking our children with enormous debt!!! Its fcukking laughable!!!

When I first heard of Ron Paul, I was excited about his domestic ideas. I agree with you that his foreign policy is not realistic, even in the 19th C. My problem came as I read blogs supporting him. From there found Stormfront and Birchers were really backing him, with money. More than that, those were his audience with his long running, for pay, newsletter. Eventually he had those removed from online access.

Whether or not he's a racist, against Catholics, Jews, etc., many that back him are. It became a case of 'show me who your friends are...' That he scored so high in the CPAC poll and the JBS is a sponsor, gives me serious pause.

What is wrong with the JBS?

 

[Annie]

Annie........the reason I couldnt support Paul is his stick your head in the sand foreign policy, which I think is simply unrealistic. But damn...........who couldnt support much of what he proposes for domestic policy. In that regard, he mirrors much of the Tea Party people.


And yup...........regarding Obama being drunk on spending. All people have to do is apply his math to their own personal finances. Imagine Obama in charge of the checkbook in your home? He's be just fine with running up your credit cards to 20K.............30K. The irony is..........the 21%ers ( many of the k00ks on this board) are always talking about "selfish corporate greed", but think nothing of sticking our children with enormous debt!!! Its fcukking laughable!!!

When I first heard of Ron Paul, I was excited about his domestic ideas. I agree with you that his foreign policy is not realistic, even in the 19th C. My problem came as I read blogs supporting him. From there found Stormfront and Birchers were really backing him, with money. More than that, those were his audience with his long running, for pay, newsletter. Eventually he had those removed from online access.

Whether or not he's a racist, against Catholics, Jews, etc., many that back him are. It became a case of 'show me who your friends are...' That he scored so high in the CPAC poll and the JBS is a sponsor, gives me serious pause.

What is wrong with the JBS?

I'm not into racists, separatism, WASP only ideas. I'm conservative, but not of that persuasion.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

- CPAC Ron Paul wins the Straw Poll

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

When I first heard of Ron Paul, I was excited about his domestic ideas. I agree with you that his foreign policy is not realistic, even in the 19th C. My problem came as I read blogs supporting him. From there found Stormfront and Birchers were really backing him, with money. More than that, those were his audience with his long running, for pay, newsletter. Eventually he had those removed from online access.

Whether or not he's a racist, against Catholics, Jews, etc., many that back him are. It became a case of 'show me who your friends are...' That he scored so high in the CPAC poll and the JBS is a sponsor, gives me serious pause.

What is wrong with the JBS?

I'm not into racists, separatism, WASP only ideas. I'm conservative, but not of that persuasion.

Ah. did know that was there deal. thanks

 

[Annie]

What is wrong with the JBS?

I'm not into racists, separatism, WASP only ideas. I'm conservative, but not of that persuasion.

Ah. did know that was there deal. thanks

Take a look at how JBS portrayed Buckley. It is the likes of JBS and others of that ilk, that 'liberals' try to paint all conservatives. Most are not like this, but to think they don't want control? That would be delusional. I fear that part of the 'far right' as Germans should have feared the Nazis:

- William F. Buckley Jr.: the Establishment?s ?House Conservative?

...Buckley whittled away at traditional, "square" conservatism until it was divested of any resemblance of its former self. Buckley very competently performed the task assigned to him by his mentors (most notably his Trotskyite socialist Yale Professor Willmoore Kendall, a veteran of the OSS, which later became the CIA), of slicing from the conservative timber anyone who persisted in espousing traditional "Old Right" conservative values. These conservatives "excommunicated" (or simply repulsed) by Buckley included: Professor Medford Evans, who appeared on Buckley's National Review magazine's inaugural masthead; Henry Paolucci, a leader of the Conservative Party of New York State; economist Murray Rothbard, who was an early National Review contributor; Ralph de Toledano, an early National Review editor; and Daniel Oliver, a National Review executive editor.

But dwarfing all of these slights was Buckley's unprovoked and uncivil attack on the man who had done more than any other individual in the 1950s to marshal confused and leaderless conservatives around a singular standard — Robert Welch, the founder of The John Birch Society.

That this schism among conservatives was completely instigated by Buckley is indicated by Welch's high praise for Buckley's magazine at the 1958 founding meeting of The John Birch Society, when Welch told his associates: "I think that National Review especially, because it is aimed so professionally at the academic mind, should be in every college library in the United States…." And in the JBS membership Bulletin for May 1960, Welch encouraged members to write to Captain Edward Rickenbacker, then Chairman of Eastern Airlines, urging that both Human Events and National Review be placed on the airline's planes.

Despite Welch's longtime support of Buckley and his magazine, however, in early 1962 Buckley gathered his editorial staff to plan an attack on America's leading conservative, anti-communist leader. Starting with a six-page editorial entitled "The Question of Robert Welch," Buckley was unrelenting in his attack on The John Birch Society for the remainder of his life.

An excerpt from Buckley's forthcoming book, Flying High: Remembering Barry Goldwater, entitled, "Goldwater, the John Birch Society, and Me" was published in the March 2008 issue of Commentary magazine, which openly calls itself "the flagship of neoconservatism."

The article is a candid description of Buckley's meeting with members of Senator Barry Goldwater's pre-presidential exploratory campaign team in 1962, and of National Review staffer Russell Kirk's attempts to get Goldwater to renounce The John Birch Society. The very liberal New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller had urged Goldwater to do the same, and, for his efforts, was almost drowned out at the podium at the 1964 Republican Convention by a hearty chorus of boos coming from the galleries! To his credit, Senator Goldwater delivered his famous "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" speech, largely as a rebuke to Rockefeller.

Though the Times now credits Buckley for the conditions making Barry Goldwater's 1964 presidential nomination possible, it was Robert Welch and The John Birch Society that did the spadework that made that happen, and Senator Goldwater knew it. Buckley talked like a conservative, but his neocon philsophy was much closer to Rockefeller's than to Goldwater's....