CPAC 2012 Begins

I am here at the beautiful Wardman Marriott in Washington DC this week for the Conservative Political Action Conference or CPAC. We will be seeing a whole host of conservative icons coming to speak… and the presidential candidates will be here too (Sarcasm? What sarcasm?). I’ll be covering as much as I can but there is no way to see, hear, do, and talk to it all, for sure.

The Chairman of the Conservative Action Union (ACU), the host organization for CPAC, is Al Cardenas and in his appearance before the press this morning he promised an exciting event.

Cardenas also noted that this year it seems that the contest for supporters being waged by the four remaining presidential candidates is wide open.

“This year there hasn’t been an effort by the candidates to stack the deck by filling seats with supporters,” Cardenas said.

He noted that in years past they’d get a pile of registrations in batches of hundreds or more making it obvious that an organized effort by a candidate had been undertaken. This year registration was steady with no great batches of registrations made all at once.

Cardenas said that because it was perhaps a more disinterested group of participants this year the campaign for their support in the straw poll is wide open.

“It will be the ultimate focus group of 10,000 or so that will see the candidates and make a decision based on what they see from the four candidates.”

Cardenas mentioned that they had to turn away many exhibitors and exhibit space was filled long ago. Some 200 exhibitors are in attendance from the Heritage Foundation, to Herman Cain, many of conservatism’s most well known groups are here to flog their wares and sell their message to the participants.

So, as I am posting they are starting the day’s events and I’ll be checking back in later with more.

Truing the Voter Rolls, Voter Integrity Project: Many States have More Voters Registered Than Voting-Age Population
Himalayas not melting. Panic anyway.
  • Gmacr1

    “he promised an exciting event.”

    From what I hear over at AoSHQ the Occupoopers have promised they are going to lend a hand in making it even more exciting than normal with the NBP sending ‘representaives’ to disrupt speakers and “bring violence” to CPAC participants.

    Keep your camera batteries charged and memory sticks empty to catch their antics.

  • GarandFan

    Got pepperspray?  Tasers might get you in trouble.

    •  In the District, pepper spray is illegal, too.  Surprised?

      • herddog505


        I can’t help but believe that, sooner or later, this is going to end very badly.  When enough people get sick and tired of being victimized with what can only be called the indifference (if not outright connivance) of the state, they will start pushing hard to change that situation.  The problem with changing things when one is angry is that one tends to go (ahem) a bit overboard.

        Perhaps we can go back to Georgian-era British law, which could see a man hanged for a whole host of crimes.  Or else we’ll have REAL Dodge Cities, where the only way people feel safe is by packing and shooting first.

      • GarandFan

        No, not really.  Just like other Democratic enclaves, it’s a true “Worker’s Paradise” – and they have the criminal violence stats to prove it.

  • 914

    Make sure to bring your pepper spray and brass knuckles.

    •  Don’t forget your bail bondsman’s card, either, if you bring these – they take a dim view of “self defense” in DC (“The World’s Largest City Entirely Populated and Run by Criminals”).

  • I suspect the deck is stacked for Santorum.

    Santorum yesterday telling a crowd that Obama is going to kill them. Just the kind of “red meat” the slobbering conservatives want…

    Rick Santorum continued to rail against President Obama’s so-called war against religion during a town hall in Plano, Texas Wednesday night. The former Pennsylvania senator — who has spent the last several days criticizing the government’s requirement that insurers provide contraception coverage and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision striking down Proposition 8 — accused the administration of “crushing” religion and setting the United States on the path towards executing religious people by decapitation:

    SANTORUM: They are taking faith and crushing it. Why? Why? When you marginalize faith in America, when you remove the pillar of God-given rights, then what’s left is the French Revolution. What’s left is the government that gives you right, what’s left are no unalienable rights, what’s left is a government that will tell you who you are, what you’ll do and when you’ll do it. What’s left in France became the guillotine. Ladies and gentlemen, we’re a long way from that, but if we do and follow the path of President Obama and his overt hostility to faith in America, then we are headed down that road.

    • jim_m

      What’s left is the government that gives you right, what’s left are no unalienable rights, what’s left is a government that will tell you who you are, what you’ll do and when you’ll do it. What’s left in France became the guillotine. Ladies and gentlemen, we’re a long way from that, but if we do and follow the path of President Obama and his overt hostility to faith in America, then we are headed down that road.

      You have an argument against that?  The French Revolution was areligious and Anti-church.  I would point you toward the history of communist states, where they were ofiicially atheist and murdered millions.  I would point you toward Nazi Germany, where the official Nazi “religion” was a mix of pagan ideas, social darwinism and fever swamp racial hatred.

      I would also point you toward Alexis DeTocqueville, who said,  “Despotism may govern without faith, but liberty cannot.”

    • jim_m

      I would also argue that Santorum was not saying that the government would be executing just religious people.  He was implying the despotism that follows an abandoning of religious moral principle is one that finds it easy to execute its dissenters. 

      Also, it would be polite of you when posting extended wuotes like that to also post a link so we could see where you get it and we could see the context from which it is taken.  Yes, I can search and find that you get it from Think Progress, but hiding that fact is pretty lame on your part.  Perhaps you could find a source making the same accusation against Santorum that isn’t part of the far left fever swamp.

  • Breitbart has a live stream.

  • Looking forward to hearing conservatives whine about needing to “protect the Constitution” as they advocate same sex marriage bans – which are unconstitutional.

    • Sky__Captain

      Got proof?

      • jim_m

        I think the proof is in the 9th circuit decision which stated that you cannot amend the California constitution to override a ruling of the state supreme court.  You see, it’s the courts that decide what is in and what is not in the constitution.  The people have no say in the matter.

      • Yes, California’s Prop 8 ban on same sex marriages was found to be unconstitutional.

        PROOF that hypocrites on the right whine about the Constitution but are oblivious to the fact that they routinely and regularly advocate denying American citizens their constitutional rights.

        • Gmacr1

          What CA spells out in their state constitution does not apply to the other states in whole or part. That you rely on a decision by the 9th is even more comical as they have had the most rulings rejected or overturned when sent before the USSC. Look for the same to happen to this whimsey.

          • If what you say is true the US Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in the matter.

            But since you’re full of shit as usual, the matter of Prop 8’s constitutionality does matter. It’s been affirmed in the most recent ruling that Prop 8 violates the Constitution.

            “Much of the decision hinges on Romer v. Evans, a 1996 Supreme Court decision
            that struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment; the measure had
            invalidated local ordinances that barred discrimination on the basis of
            sexual orientation. The high court deemed the amendment unconstitutional
            because it specifically targeted gays, then stripped them of substantive legal protections.

            GMAC Daddy doesn’t understand… as usual. he acknowledges and applauds that the matter is going to the US Supreme Court but then turns right around and claims the Supreme Court doesn’t have jurisdiction because, in GMAC Daddy’s feeble mind, the ruling only has to satisfy the California constitution.

            GMac pulls bullshit like this out of his butt dozens of times per day.

            He’s wrong again.

          • jim_m

            If the SCOTUS has no jurisdiction then the Circuit court by extension has no jurisdiction either.  But what Gmacr1 said is correct that the case applies specifically to California and not to anywhere else.

            This issue differs from Romer vs Evans as in that case the law was barring the creation of any law that protected gays from discrimination.  In this case we are talking about extending additional rights to homosexuals.

            The cases are very different.  The Federal judge held a BS hearing where he tried to make this into a trial on homosexuality.  He also failed to disclose that he was gay himself and had a vested interest in the outcome of the case.

            In the present case the court relies upon the argument that the amendment is invalid because it takes away a prior right to marry.  But since that right was never recognized until the court ruled that it was a right, the only recourse of the people was to pass the amendment.  The court’s position is therefore anti-democratic since the correct recourse would be to amend the constitution. By declaring that any recourse is unconstitutional, the court sets itself up as a final and irrevocable arbiter of the law where there is no available way to overrule them.

            Our system of checks and balances relies upon each branch of government being able to be overruled by the others.  The courts can be overruled by changing the constitution.  The 9th circuit is in effect saying that the constitution is whatever they declare it to be and that the poeple cannot change that constitution without their permission.  If the ruling is upheld then we no longer live in anythinng remotely resembling a democracy.

          • “In this case we are talking about extending additional rights to homosexuals.”

            At question in Prop 8 is the Ban on same sex marriage.

            It isn’t an instance of extending rights. The Prop 8 ban would take rights away. It doesn’t extend anything to anyone, it prevents same sex marriages.

          • GarandFan

             How did Prop 8 take rights “away”?  How do you take what was never given?

            Oh, there were gay “marriages” in Kalifornia after the first law was overturned.  That was simply because the libs took the opportunity and ran with it, hoping those opposed would just accept it, instead of waiting to see the final outcome of Prop 8.

        • jim_m

          Actually, the court ruled that the amendment to the California Constitution was invalid because it stemmed from an animus against homosexuals. 

          The 9th Circuit is the most overruled court in the nation. The Supreme Court will likely overturn this case if they hear it.  The court does not have discretion to invalidate a lawfully enacted constitutional amendment and that is what the 9th circuit has done.  

          Furthermore, there is no constitutional protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation.  There is statutory protection but that does not amount to the same thing.

          The bigger issue here is judicial overreach.  You can disagree with Californians decision to amend their constitution to make same sex marriage illegal, but they did so in response to their state supreme court declaring it legal.  The correct remedy was to amend their constitution.  The court is saying, in effect, that it’s rulings are absolute and that there is no recourse if you don’t like them. 

          That’s what dictatorship looks like.  I know lefties like dictatorship but they ought to stop pretending that they don’t.

          • Commander_Chico

            I agree it should be left to the states and state legislatures, but ultimately it’s about freedom of contract.

            Marriage being a form of contract enforced by the state.

          • herddog505

            Commander_Chicoultimately it’s about freedom of contract.

            I agree.  We doll up marriage with a lot of romantic and religious fluff, but it boils down to an agreement between two (or more, depending on one’s culture) people to meet certain obligations with respect to property, money, inheritance, etc.

            Personally, I like Heinlein’s description of “marriage” in The Puppet Masters: the loving couple pop down to the courthouse, fill out a contract stating their obligations to each other and the duration of them (with an option to extend), sign, pay their fee, and BAM!  Hitched.  The clerk offers that, for an extra fee, he can have a suitably grave man conduct a ceremony, complete with music and good, fatherly advice for the new couple.

            Hmmm… hope my wife never reads this…

        •  The 9th Circuit, over the last thirty years, has been reversed by the Supreme Court more than all ten other Circuits combined.  It is basically a coin flip.

          As usual, you are full of yourself, and your arguments smell like it.

    • GarandFan

       “Unconstitutional” according to who?  Only 6 states now “permit” it.  One of those states had citizens vote overwhelming TWICE – NO!  And it was overturned by a So that automatically makes them “wrong”?GAY judge who did not disclose his homosexuality – that his lifestyle
      was at issue – and his ass was dutifully covered by 2 judges of the 9th
      Circus Court.

      44 states still do not recognize gay “marriage”. 

  • Commander_Chico

    Some 200 exhibitors are in attendance from the Heritage Foundation, to Herman Cain

    Heritage Foundation and Herman Cain?

    Sounds like a place to give a wide berth to.

    •  Aw, but your OWS scum is going to show up to disrupt – don’t you want to see your rapist and criminal pals?  You supported them so vigorously here for so long, I know they’d love to see a kindred spirit.

  • Be careful.  All you have to defend you from a criminal mob in the Metro Police, who have stood by and watched they flaunt the law and attack citizens for months.

    • Meiji Man

      I’m sure that as soon as the OWS started loosing the street brawl Metro would jump right in to break it up.